On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:37:00 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> >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 > > > >I do like the object one better, would this mean I should restructure > >the peer stuff somehow (netlink attribute structure)? > > Well we can introduce separate commands: > DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_PEER_GET > DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_PEER_SET > > For "set" part, this would work nice. However for the "get" part, we > would have to call both DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_GET and > DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_PEER_GET. So probably better to add a nest attr: > DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_PEER > and have attrs like: > DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_PEER_HW_ADDR (does not have to be always eth, right?) > DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_PEER_TYPE > (DEVLINK_PORT_TYPE_NOTSET/DEVLINK_PORT_TYPE_ETH/DEVLINK_PORT_TYPE_IB) > DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_PEER_NETDEV_IFINDEX > DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_PEER_NETDEV_NAME > DEVLINK_ATTR_PORT_PEER_NETDEV_IBDEV_NAME > in the nest. > > The userspace part can stay as I described previously: > $ devlink port peer set pci/0000:82:00.0/10001 hw_addr 00:52:44:11:22:33 > > Not sure about "port show" output. In json, the "peer" things should be > under "peer" dictionary.
I'll make it so.
