Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:47:42PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >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
"port of the ASIC" in a sence of "eswitch ports"? > >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 Yeah. That is not yet implemented. I agree it is most straightforward. The question is, is it fine to have set of: peer_eth_addr peer_mtu peer_something_else Or rather to have some object to pin this on. Something like: $ devlink port peer set pci/0000:82:00.0/10001 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 Agreed. It was just a wild idea :) >(that'd be a third for that port.)
