Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 03:52:02AM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:48:16 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 06:56:38PM CET, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote: >> >On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:20:37 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> >For creating subdevices, I don't think the handle should ever be port. >> >We create new ports on a devlink instance, and configure its forwarding >> >> Okay I agree. Something like: >> $ devlink port add pci/0000:00:10.0 ..... >> >> It's a bit confusing because "set" accepts port handle (like >> pci/0000:00:10.0/1). Probably better would be: >> $ devlink dev port add pci/0000:00:10.0 ..... >> >> >with offloads of well established Linux SW constructs. New devices are >> >not logically associated with other ports (see how in my patches there >> >are 2 "subports" but no main port on that PF - a split not a hierarchy). >> >> Right, basically you have 2 equal objects. Makes sense. >> >> >How we want to model forwarding inside a VM (who configures the >> >underlying switching) remains unclear. >> >> I don't understand. Could you elaborate a bit? > >If VF in a VM gets a partitioning request does the new port pop up on >the hypervisor? With a port netdev?
Switchport in hypervizor with correct switchid attribute, hostport in vm. Makes sense? > >Does the VF also create a port object as well as host port object? > >That question is probably independent of host port discussion.
