On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:08:29 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:24:34PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: > >Devlink ports represent ports of a switch device (or SR-IOV > >NIC which has an embedded switch). In case of SR-IOV when > >PCIe PFs are exposed the PFs which are directly connected > >to the local machine may also spawn PF netdev (much like > >VFs have a port/"repr" and an actual VF netdev). > > > >Allow devlink to expose such linking. There is currently no > >way to find out which netdev corresponds to which PF. > > > >Example: > > > >$ devlink port > >pci/0000:82:00.0/0: type eth netdev p4p1 flavour physical > >pci/0000:82:00.0/10000: type eth netdev eth1 flavour pci_pf pf 0 peer_netdev > >enp130s0 > >pci/0000:82:00.0/10001: type eth netdev eth0 flavour pci_vf pf 0 vf 0 > >pci/0000:82:00.0/10002: type eth netdev eth2 flavour pci_vf pf 0 vf 1 > > Peer as the other side of a "virtual cable". For PF, that is probably > sufficient. But I think what a "peer of devlink port" should be "a > devlink port".
Maybe I'm not clear on what devlink port is - to me its a port of the ASIC. The notion of devlink port connected to devlink port seems to counter such definition :S I do not think that every netdev should have a devlink port associated. > Not sure about VF. > > Consider a simple problem of setting up a VF mac address. In legacy, you > do it like this: > $ ip link set eth2 vf 1 mac 00:52:44:11:22:33 > However, in new model, you so far cannot do that. Why? $ devlink port set pci/0000:82:00.0/10001 peer_eth_addr 00:52:44:11:22:33 It's more of a neighbour info situation than a local port situation. > What I was thinking about was some "dummy peer" which would be on the > host. Not sure if only as a "dummy peer devlink port" or even as some > sort of "dummy netdev". > > One way or another, it would provide the user some info about which VF > representor is connected to which VF in VM (mac mapping). Ack, but isn't the MAC setting is the only thing we're missing from "switchdev SR-IOV"? Would the "dummy netdev" be used for anything else? I would rather not introduce new netdev just to do that (that'd be a third for that port.)
