On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 06:29 -0800, Skidmore, Donald C wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Edward Cree [mailto:ec...@solarflare.com] > > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 5:53 AM > > To: Skidmore, Donald C > > Cc: Hiroshi Shimamoto; vyase...@redhat.com; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Alexander > > Duyck; Bjørn Mork; e1000-de...@lists.sourceforge.net; > > net...@vger.kernel.org; Choi, Sy Jong; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; David > > Laight; Hayato Momma > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control > > > > On 20/02/15 21:05, Skidmore, Donald C wrote: > > > If a vender specific interface is objectionable maybe a simpler and more > > generic interface would be for the PF to be able to set a given VF into > > "trusted" mode... I admit exactly what 'trusted' meant would vary from > > vender to vender, but it would be a way for the driver to know it could > > allow > > configurations such as this. Just an idea, since we seem to be getting more > > requests for things such as this. > > That's an even worse idea; now you have a generic interface with completely > > undefined semantics. > > The right way to do this, imho, is to use one of the standard interfaces for > > driver-specific gubbins - e.g. sysfs, genetlink or even (whisper it) ioctls > > - and > > put your 'VF promisc mode' setting there. That way you have a vendor- > > specific interface with vendor-specified semantics. > > Of those options, I'd recommend sysfs as the best fit. > > The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended > > for > > the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error, please > > notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Unless you are an > > addressee (or authorized to receive for an addressee), you may not use, > > copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this > > message. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this > > message is strictly prohibited. > > I do see your point, but I thought custom sysfs interfaces (not to even > mention new ioctl's :) were frowned upon? Which is why I didn't even > consider sysfs as an option.
We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct that a custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this. We agreed upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or off VF multicast promiscuous mode.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
