On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 10:50:17 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> I understand that from the functionality point of view, you are correct.
> But for the visibility and better understanding about what's the
> topology, I think it would be fine to expose this. Anyway, I'll remove
> the patch to expose the devl
Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 08:49:23PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 08:35:27 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Is switchib doing forwarding? Not long ago Parav was convincing us
>>> that switchdev mode for IB is pretty much meaningless. Even though
>>> there are apparently re
On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 08:35:27 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Is switchib doing forwarding? Not long ago Parav was convincing us
>> that switchdev mode for IB is pretty much meaningless. Even though
>> there are apparently representors for IB (judging by the recent RDMA
>> patchset on netdev)...
>
Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:34:14PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:21 PM Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 07:59:26PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>> >On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:49:05 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:40:02PM CE
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:21 PM Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 07:59:26PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
> >On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:49:05 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:40:02PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:12:42 +01
On 3/29/19 2:57 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:29:11 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> Out of curiosity, what are the shared features? It seems mlx5 drives
>>> a lot of our API design, it'd be good if the community had a better
>>> understanding of it.
>>>
>>> The situation w
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:29:11 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, what are the shared features? It seems mlx5 drives
> > a lot of our API design, it'd be good if the community had a better
> > understanding of it.
> >
> > The situation with pipelined devices is somewhat murky. D
On 3/29/19 11:59 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:49:05 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:40:02PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:12:42 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
From: Jiri Pirko
To provide visibility of the po
Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 07:59:26PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:49:05 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:40:02PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>> >On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:12:42 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> From: Jiri Pirko
>> >>
>> >
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 07:49:05 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:40:02PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
> >On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:12:42 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> From: Jiri Pirko
> >>
> >> To provide visibility of the ports, this patchset exposes switch ID
> >> for
Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:40:02PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:12:42 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> From: Jiri Pirko
>>
>> To provide visibility of the ports, this patchset exposes switch ID
>> for devlink ports, which are part of a switch. The rest of the ports
>>
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:12:42 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko
>
> To provide visibility of the ports, this patchset exposes switch ID
> for devlink ports, which are part of a switch. The rest of the ports
> if any (in case of sr-iov for example) do not set switch ID.
I don't feel good
From: Jiri Pirko
To provide visibility of the ports, this patchset exposes switch ID
for devlink ports, which are part of a switch. The rest of the ports
if any (in case of sr-iov for example) do not set switch ID.
Jiri Pirko (12):
net: devlink: convert devlink_port_attrs bools to bits
net:
13 matches
Mail list logo
