Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 06:34:22PM CET, pa...@mellanox.com wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 12:21 PM >> 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 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? >Yes, there is an eswitch but it doesn't have switch side of vports.
Why? They should have. >It is equivalent to legacy mode. >I hope you are not thinking to create fake eswitch vports. :-)
