On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 06:11:07PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > At least in RDMA we have drivers doing all combinations of this:
> > multiple ports per BDF, one port per BDF, and one composite RDMA
> > device formed by combining multiple BDFs worth of ports together.
>
> Right, last but not l
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 01:30:19 +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 05:03:20PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> > > Don't we already have devlink instances for every mlx5 physical port
> > > and VF as they are unique PCI functions?
> >
> > That's a very NIC-centric view of the w
On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 05:03:20PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Don't we already have devlink instances for every mlx5 physical port
> > and VF as they are unique PCI functions?
>
> That's a very NIC-centric view of the world, though. Equating devlink
> instances to ports, and further to PCI
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:15:14 +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:30:00AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:37:53 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > > Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:24:32PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
> > > >PCI endpoint corresponds to
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:30:00AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:37:53 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:24:32PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
> > >PCI endpoint corresponds to a PCI device, but such device
> > >can have one more more logical dev
> -Original Message-
> From: Jiri Pirko
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 6:38 AM
> To: Jakub Kicinski
> Cc: da...@davemloft.net; oss-driv...@netronome.com;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; Parav Pandit ; Jason
> Gunthorpe
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/8] de
Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 05:04:01PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:25:57 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> I think it would be beneficial to have the switchid shown for devlink
>> >> ports too. Then it is clean that the devlink ports with the same
>> >> switchid belong to
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:25:57 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> I think it would be beneficial to have the switchid shown for devlink
> >> ports too. Then it is clean that the devlink ports with the same
> >> switchid belong to the same switch, and other ports under the same
> >> devlink instance (like P
Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 05:24:04PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 09:56:24 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:30:00PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>> >On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:37:53 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:24:32
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 09:56:24 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:30:00PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
> >On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:37:53 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:24:32PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
> >> >PCI endpoint corresponds
Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 09:56:24AM CET, j...@resnulli.us wrote:
[...]
>>devlink instance). Those less pipelined NICs can forward between
>>ports, but still want a function per port (otherwise user space
>>sometimes gets confused). If we have multiple functions which are on
>>the same "switchid" t
Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:30:00PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:37:53 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:24:32PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>> >PCI endpoint corresponds to a PCI device, but such device
>> >can have one more more logica
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:37:53 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:24:32PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
> >PCI endpoint corresponds to a PCI device, but such device
> >can have one more more logical device ports associated with it.
> >We need a way to distinguish those. Add
Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:24:32PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>PCI endpoint corresponds to a PCI device, but such device
>can have one more more logical device ports associated with it.
>We need a way to distinguish those. Add a PCI subport in the
>dumps and print the info in phys_port_n
PCI endpoint corresponds to a PCI device, but such device
can have one more more logical device ports associated with it.
We need a way to distinguish those. Add a PCI subport in the
dumps and print the info in phys_port_name appropriately.
This is not equivalent to port splitting, there is no spl
15 matches
Mail list logo
