Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:03:58PM CET, pa...@mellanox.com wrote: >Hi Jiri, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 4:08 AM >> To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> >> Cc: Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com>; Samudrala, Sridhar >> <sridhar.samudr...@intel.com>; da...@davemloft.net; >> netdev@vger.kernel.org; oss-driv...@netronome.com >> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] devlink: allow subports on devlink PCI >> ports >> >> Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:22:57PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com >> wrote: >> >On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:24:15 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: >> >> Hi Jiri, Jakub, Samudrala Sridhar, >> >> > > > > > And physical port in include/uapi/linux/devlink.h also >> >> > > > > > describe that. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > By "that" you must mean that the physical is a user facing port. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Can you please describe the difference between 'PF port' and >> >> > > > 'physical port of include/uapi/linux/devlink.h'? I must have >> >> > > > missed this crisp definition in discussion between you and >> >> > > > Jiri. I am in meantime checking the thread. >> >> > > >> >> > > Perhaps start with the cover letter which includes an ASCII drawing? >> >> > > >> >> > > Using Mellanox nomenclature - PF port is a "representor" for the >> >> > > PF which may be on another Host (SmartNIC or multihost). It's >> >> > > pretty much the same thing as a VF port/"representor". >> >> > > >> >> > Yes. We are aligned here. :-) >> >> > I see your point, where in multi-host scenario, a physical port may >> >> > be 1, but PF ports are 4, because of 4 PFs for 4 hosts. >> >> > (just an example of 4 hosts with their own mac address sharing 1 >> >> > physical port). >> >> > >> >> > When there is no multihost and one to one mapping between a PF and >> >> > physical links, there is some overlap between PF port and physical >> >> > port attributes. >> >> > I believe, such overlap is fine as long as we have unique indices for >> >> > the >> ports. >> >> > >> >> > So I am ok to have flavours as physical/cpu/dsa/pf/vf/mdev/switchport. >> >> > (last 4 as new port flavours). >> >> > >> >> > > Physical port is the hole on the panel of the adapter where cable >> goes. >> >> >> >> So my take away from above discussion are: >> >> 1. Following new port flavours should be added >> pci_pf/pci_vf/mdev/switchport. >> >> a. Switchport indicates port on the eswitch. Normally this port has rep- >> netdev attached to it. >> > >> >I don't understand the "switchport". Surely physical ports are also >> >attached to the eswitch? And one of the main purpose of adding the >> >pci_pf/pci_vf flavours was to generate phys_port_name for the port >> >netdevs. >> > >> >Please don't use the term representor if possible. Representor for >> >most developers describes the way the netdev is implemented in the >> >driver, so for Mellanox and Netronome different ports will be >> >representors and non-representors. That's why I prefer port netdev >> >(attached to eswitch, has switch_id) and host netdev (PF/VF netdev, >> >vNIC, VSI, etc). >> > >> >> b. host side port flavours are pci_pf/pci_vf/mdev which may be >> >> connected to switchport >> > >> >See above, pci_pf/pci_vf are needed for phys_port_name generation. >> >> Yep, that makes sense. >> >> >> > >> >> 2. host side port flavours are not limited to Ethernet, as it is for >> >> devlink's >> port instance. >> >> >> >> 3. Each port is continue to be accessed using unique port index. >> >> >> >> 4. host side ports and switchport are control objects. >> >> a. switch side ports reside where current eswitch object of devlink >> >> instance reside b. for a given VF/PF/mdev such host side ports may be >> >> in hypervisor or VM or both depending on the privilege >> >> >> >> 5. eth.mac_address, rdma.port_guid can be programmed at host port >> >> flavours by extending as $ devlink port param set... >> >> (similar to devlink dev param set) >> > >> >You can keep restating that's your position, but I have *not* conceded >> >to that. >> >> I'm also not convinced that host dummy ports are good idea to hold these. >> >> >I didn't understand what do you mean my dummy port.
It's a port for a VF host port which is not actually in the host but in the vm. Very confusing. >Can you explain what is wrong in programming host port params using host_port >object? >Few questions are unanswered in my past 2 or 3 emails. >Can you please go through them? >Can you point to some example switch API where you program host params at >switch? > >> > >> >> 6. more host port params can be added in future when user need arise >> >> >> >> 7. rep-netdev continue to be eswitch (switchport) representor at the >> switch side. >> >> a. Hence rep-netdev cannot be used for programming host port's >> parameters. >> >> >> >> 8. eswitch devlink instance knows when VF/PF/mdev's switchport are >> created/removed. >> >> Hence, those will be created/deleted by eswitch. >> >> Similarly for host port flavours too. >> >> >> >> Does it look fine? Did I miss something? >> >> We would like to progress on incremental patches for item-4 and any >> >> prep work needed to reach to item-4.
