From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [net-next,1/2] add iovnl netlink support Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:19:32 +0200 Message-ID: <201004201819.32970.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20100419191807.10423.84600.stgit@savbu-pc100.cisco.com> <201004201657.02873.arnd@arndb.de> <20100420152206.GA24942@x200.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Scott Feldman , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Wright Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:50081 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753995Ab0DTQTk (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:19:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100420152206.GA24942@x200.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday 20 April 2010, Chris Wright wrote: > * Arnd Bergmann (arnd@arndb.de) wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 April 2010, Chris Wright wrote: > > > > After thinking some more about this case, I now believe we should do > > it the other way around, and have lldpad in control of this interface > > from the user space side, and letting user programs (lldptool, libvirt, > > ...) talk to lldpad in order to set it up. > > lldpad won't be involved in all cases, yet a mgmt tool like libvirt will. > so this seems backwards. Well, that part is still the matter of this discussion, as far as I can tell ;-) > > But that's only the case if the NIC itself is in VEPA mode. If that > > were the case, there would be no need for a kernel interface at all, > > because then we could just drive the port profile selection from user > > space. > > > > The proposed interface only seems to make sense if you use it to > > configure the NIC itself! Why should it care about the port profile > > otherwise? > > In the case of devices that can do adjacent switch negotiations directly. I thought the idea to deal with those devices was to beat sense into the respective developers until they do the negotiation in software 8-) > > > > Same here: Should you be able to set multiple MAC addresses, or > > > > trunk mode? Can the VF override it? > > > > Also, for the new multi-channel VEPA, I'd guess that you also need > > > > to supply an 802.1ad S-VLAN ID. > > > > > > Something like set_port_profile() would initiate the negotiation for the > > > s-vlan id for a particular channel, not sure it's needed as part of the > > > netlink interface or not. > > > > Well, you have to set up the s-vlan ID in order to have something to > > set the port profile in. > > Right, depends if the use the port profile to establish the channel and > negotiate the s-vlan ID. I don't recall the order there. I'm pretty sure that setting up the channel (for 802.1bg) is done before any port profile comes in. Arnd