On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 17:27:20 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 05:25:29PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: > >On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 09:14:02 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> > >> > >> Now it is unused, remove it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com> > > > >Oh, you nuke this completely, that's going to conflict hard with my > >series :) > > > >(Provided the locking is okay) I think it'd be good if we flipped the > >logic in dev_get_phys_port_name(). Always try devlink: > > > >@@ -7872,7 +7873,7 @@ int dev_get_phys_port_name(struct net_device *dev, > > const struct net_device_ops *ops = dev->netdev_ops; > > > >+ if (!devlink_compat_phys_port_name_get(dev, name, len)) > >+ return 0; > > if (!ops->ndo_get_phys_port_name) > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > return ops->ndo_get_phys_port_name(dev, name, len); > > } > > > >NFP is using a single set of NDOs for PFs and VFs (which don't have > >devlink ports), so either it'd be good if I could call the devlink > >helper for real ports, or we need the above. > > That wouldn't give correct results now. Until you introduce PF/VF port > flavours, devlink_compat_phys_port_name_get() does not assemble correct > names for them. So we have to call ndo_get_phys_port_name until it knows > how to do that.
Okay, yeah, this won't give correct results after my series though, so please advise on which order you want these things merged? I don't think there were any changes or concerns with my series - one commit message fix, split one helper into two, and wrap the peer into another attr in the dump? Can it go in first?
