Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:02:11PM CEST, liuhang...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:08:23AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >+static int team_ethtool_get_link_ksettings(struct net_device *dev,
>> >+ struct ethtool_link_ksettings *cmd)
>> >+{
>> >+ struct team *team= netdev_priv(dev);
>> >+ unsigned long speed = 0;
>> >+ struct team_port *port;
>> >+
>> >+ cmd->base.duplex = DUPLEX_UNKNOWN;
>> >+ cmd->base.port = PORT_OTHER;
>> >+
>> >+ list_for_each_entry(port, &team->port_list, list) {
>> >+ if (team_port_txable(port)) {
>> >+ if (port->state.speed != SPEED_UNKNOWN)
>> >+ speed += port->state.speed;
>> >+ if (cmd->base.duplex == DUPLEX_UNKNOWN &&
>> >+ port->state.duplex != DUPLEX_UNKNOWN)
>> >+ cmd->base.duplex = port->state.duplex;
>>
>> What is exactly the point of this patch? Why do you need such
>> information. This is hw-related info. If you simply sum-up all txable
>> ports, the value is always highly misleading.
>>
>> For example for hash-based port selection with 2 100Mbit ports,
>> you will get 200Mbit, but it is not true. It is up to the traffic and
>> hash function what is the actual TX speed you can get.
>> On the RX side, this is even more misleading as the actual speed depends
>> on the other side of the wire.
>
>The number is the maximum speed in theory. I added it because someone
"in theory" is not what this value should return in my opinion.
>said bond interface could show total speed while team could not...
>The usage is customer could get team link-speed and throughput via SNMP.
Has no meaning though :/
>
>Thanks
>Hangbin
>>
>>
>> >+ }
>> >+ }
>> >+ cmd->base.speed = speed ? : SPEED_UNKNOWN;
>> >+
>> >+ return 0;
>> >+}
>> >+
>> > static const struct ethtool_ops team_ethtool_ops = {
>> > .get_drvinfo = team_ethtool_get_drvinfo,
>> > .get_link = ethtool_op_get_link,
>> >+ .get_link_ksettings = team_ethtool_get_link_ksettings,
>> > };
>> >
>> > /***********************
>> >--
>> >2.19.2
>> >
