On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 09:44:29 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >Okay, so let me explain the way I see it, and you can explain your way > >or tell me where you disagree. Those devlink ports and netdevs are pf > >ports and vf ports, which most refer to as "representor". If one sends > >packets to the netdev indicated in DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_NETDEV_* > >attributes they will _egress_ the switch from that port. For physical > >port that means going onto the Ethernet or IB wire. For PCIe it means > >getting DMAed over the PCIe link to host memory. > > > >There is a netdev construct on the host which is in charge of that > >host memory. Maybe we shall call that host netdev? > > > >(I said I don't like "representor" for the reason that people don't > >refer to the physical port as "representor" even though it has exactly > >the semantics we are following. This distinction between behaviour of > >physical and PCI ports is what leads to confusion, I think.) > > > >Let me bring out the moose :) > > > > HOST A || HOST B > > || > > PF A | V | V | V | V || PF B | V | V | V > > > > |*F |*F |*F |*F ... || |*F |*F |*F ... > > > >*port A0 |*port A1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 ||*port B0 |*port B1 | 0 | 1 | 2 > > > > || > > PCI Express link || PCI Express link > > \ \ \ | | | | | / / / > > \ \ \ | | | | | / / / > > /\ \______\______\'___|___|__________|_______'____/___/___/__ /\ > > || |+PF0s0|+PF0s1 |+VF0|+VF1| ...| |+PF1s0|+PF1s1|+VF0|+VF1| || > > i || |------ ------ ----- ---- ----|--- ------ ------ ---- ----| || > > i > >d n H || | <<========== | || d > >n H > >e s O || | ==========>> | || e > >s O > >v t S || | SR-IOV e-switch | || v > >t S > >l a T || | <<========== | || l > >a T > >i n || | ==========>> | || i > >n > >n c A || | ________ _________ ________ | || n > >c B > >k e || | |+Phys 0 |+Phys 1 |+Phys 2 | | || k > >e > > || \---------------------------------------------------------/ || > > \/ | | | \/ > > > > | | | > > || || > > MAC 0 || MAC 1 || MAC 2 > > || || > > > >Things marked with + are devlink ports and have port (-repr-) netdevs > >(including physical ports). > >Things marked with * are host netdevs, don't have devlink ports. > > Okay, I got it. So you say that devlink ports should always be only > ports of eswitch. > > PF host netdev should have "devlink port" instance, correct? > But it still "belongs" under the ASIC represented by the devlink > instance...
Yes, I think so.
