On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 23:21:25 +0000, Bshara, Nafea wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 22:57:21 +0000, Bshara, Nafea wrote:
> >>> Having said that, it's entirely unclear to me what the user scenario is
> >>> here. You say "which two devices related", yet you only have one bit,
> >>> so it can indicate that there is another device, not _which_ device is
> >>> related. Information you can full well get from running lspci 🤷
> >>> Do the devices have the same PCI ID/vendor:model?
> >>
> >> Different model id
> >
> > Okay, then you know which one is which. Are there multiple ENAs but
> > one EFA?
>
> Yes, very possible. Very common
>
> Typical use case that instances have one ena for control plane, one
> for internet facing , and one 100G ena that also have efa capabilities
I see, and those are PCI devices.. Some form of platform data would
seem like the best fit to me. There is something called:
/sys/bus/pci/${dbdf}/label
It seems to come from some ACPI table - DSM maybe? I think you can put
whatever string you want there 🤔
> >> Will look into sysfs
> >
> > I still don't understand what is the problem you're trying to solve,
> > perhaps phys_port_id is the way to go...
> >
> >
> > The larger point here is that we can't guide you to the right API
> > unless we know what you're trying to achieve. And we don't have
> > the slightest clue of what're trying to achieve if uAPI is forwarded
> > to the device.
> >
> > Honestly this is worse, and way more basic than I thought, I think
> > 315c28d2b714 ("net: ena: ethtool: add extra properties retrieval via
> > get_priv_flags")
> > needs to be reverted.
>
> Let’s not do that until we finish this discussion and explain the various use
> cases
Whatever we decide is the right API for tagging interfaces in a virtual
environment, it's definitely not going to be private feature flags.
