Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 05:52:09PM CET, pa...@mellanox.com wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 11:14 AM >> To: Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com> >> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.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 >> >> Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:14:53PM CET, pa...@mellanox.com wrote: >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> >> >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 3:45 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 >> >> >> >> Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 08:16:42PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com >> >> wrote: >> >> >On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:11:54 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >> >> >> >2. flavour should not be vf/pf, flavour should be hostport, >> switchport. >> >> >> >> >Because switch is flat and agnostic of pf/vf/mdev. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not sure. It's good to have this kind of visibility. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Yes, this subthread honestly makes me go from 60% sure to 95% >> >> >> >sure we shouldn't do the dual object thing :( Seems like Parav >> >> >> >is already confused by it and suggests host port can exist >> >> >> >without switch port :( >> >> >> >> >> >> Although I understand your hesitation, the host ports are also >> >> >> associated with the asic and should be under the devlink instance. >> >> >> It is just a matter of proper documentation and clear code to >> >> >> avoid confusions. >> >> > >> >> >They are certainly a part and belong to the ASIC, the question in my >> >> >mind is more along the lines of do we want "one pipe/one port" or is >> >> >it okay to have multiple software objects of the same kind for those >> >> >objects. >> >> > >> >> >To put it differently - do want a port object for each port of the >> >> >ASIC or do we want a port object for each netdev.. >> >> >> >> Perhaps "port" name of the object is misleading. From the beginning, >> >> I ment to have it for both switch ports and host ports. I admit that >> >> "host port" is a bit misleading, as it is not really a port of >> >> eswitch, but the counter part. But if we introduce another object for >> >> that purpose in devlink (like "partititon"), it would be a lot of >> >> duplication >> I think. >> >> >> >> Question is, do we need the "host port"? Can't we just put a relation >> >> to host netdev in the eswitch port. >> >> >> >Can you please explain how does it work for rdma for non sriov use case? >> >Do we have to create a fake eswitch object? >> >> Could you please provide details on "rdma for non sriov use case"? >> >There are multiple mdevs on PFs that happen to have link layer as IB and those >devlink instances have port that deserved to be configured same way as that of >Eth.
Could you please describe it a bit more. There is still an eswitch through which the traffic is going, isn't it?
