From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 3/3] net: export physical port id via sysfs Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:27:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1374100054.3861.18.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com> References: <1373908027-25800-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <1373908027-25800-4-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <20130717082949.GA1582@minipsycho.orion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , To: Return-path: Received: from webmail.solarflare.com ([12.187.104.25]:7721 "EHLO webmail.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755995Ab3GQW1j (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 18:27:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 01:09 +0530, Narendra_K@Dell.com wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jiri Pirko [mailto:jiri@resnulli.us] [...] > > Although this can be done by extending netdevice structure by another item, > > I believe it is cleaner to do it by ndo. Driver has a flexibility to either compute > > the phys port on fly of compute it once, store it in it's private data and use it > > when ndo is called. Doesn't the same argument apply to perm_addr? And the flexibility there turned out to be completely pointless. > It seems to me that phys_port identifier is a net_device property, > similar to netdev->dev_addr or netdev->if_port, and could be part of > struct net_device as discussed in [1]. My understanding may not be > correct. > > Hello Ben, for the hybrid guest networking scenario, would it be > required/helpful for phys_port to be part of net_device structure or > either of the approaches would be fine. I don't think it matters. Either would be fine. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.