Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] nfp: offload LAG for tc flower egress

[Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 22:26:03 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Jakub Kicinski
> <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2018 20:04:56 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:  
> 
> >> Does this apply also to non-uplink representors? if yes, what is the use case?
> >>
> >> We are looking on supporting uplink lag in sriov switchdev scheme - we refer to
> >> it as "vf lag" -- b/c the netdev and rdma devices seen by the VF are actually
> >> subject to HA and/or LAG - I wasn't sure if/how you limit this series
> >> to uplink reprs  
> >
> > I don't think we have a limitation on the output port within the LAG.
> > But keep in mind in our devices all ports belong to the same eswitch/PF
> > so bonding uplink ports is generally sufficient, I'm not sure VF
> > bonding adds much HA.  IOW AFAIK we support VF bonding because HW can do
> > it easily, not because we have a strong use case for it.  
> 
> To make it clear, vf lag is code name for uplink lag, I think we want
> to say that we provide the VM a lagged VF, anyway, again, the lag is
> done on the uplink reps not on the vf reps.

Ah, ack, same use case here!

> Unlike the uplink port which is physical one, the vf vport is virtual
> one, what could be the benefit to bond two vports?

I'm not sure what it could be :)  We can also bond an uplink and a VF!
All outputs on the nfp are working same, so why limit ourselves if we
can do it? :)