On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 15:54:21 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 03:52:02AM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: > >On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:48:16 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 06:56:38PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: > >> >On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:20:37 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> >For creating subdevices, I don't think the handle should ever be port. > >> >We create new ports on a devlink instance, and configure its forwarding > >> > > >> > >> Okay I agree. Something like: > >> $ devlink port add pci/0000:00:10.0 ..... > >> > >> It's a bit confusing because "set" accepts port handle (like > >> pci/0000:00:10.0/1). Probably better would be: > >> $ devlink dev port add pci/0000:00:10.0 ..... > >> > >> >with offloads of well established Linux SW constructs. New devices are > >> >not logically associated with other ports (see how in my patches there > >> >are 2 "subports" but no main port on that PF - a split not a hierarchy). > >> > > >> > >> Right, basically you have 2 equal objects. Makes sense. > >> > >> >How we want to model forwarding inside a VM (who configures the > >> >underlying switching) remains unclear. > >> > >> I don't understand. Could you elaborate a bit? > > > >If VF in a VM gets a partitioning request does the new port pop up on > >the hypervisor? With a port netdev? > > Switchport in hypervizor with correct switchid attribute, hostport in > vm. Makes sense?
If the switchport is in the hypervisor then only the hypervisor can control switching/forwarding, correct? The primary use case for partitioning within a VM (of a VF) would be containers (and DPDK)? SR-IOV makes things harder. Splitting a PF is reasonably easy to grasp. I'm trying to get a sense of is how would we control an SR-IOV environment as a whole. > >Does the VF also create a port object as well as host port object? > > > >That question is probably independent of host port discussion.
