Re: [net-next-2.6 V7 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port management (was iovnl)

[Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>]

* Scott Feldman (scofeldm@cisco.com) wrote:
> On 5/14/10 9:42 AM, "Patrick McHardy" <kaber@trash.net> wrote:
> 
> > Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> Maybe a better structure would be to separate the two cases, also allowing
> >> a port profile to be associated with both the PF and with each of its VFs?
> >> 
> >> Something like this:
> >> 
> >> [IFLA_NUM_VF]
> >> [IFLA_VF_PORTS]
> >>   [IFLA_VF_PORT]
> >>     [IFLA_VF_PORT_*], ...
> >>   [IFLA_VF_PORT]
> >>     [IFLA_VF_PORT_*], ...
> >> [IFLA_PORT_SELF]
> >>   [IFLA_VF_PORT_*], ...
> > 
> > That would also be fine.
> 
> I want to make sure I've got this right before starting on ver8 of patch:
> 
>     - we'll use the layout listed above
> 
>     - RTM_SETLINK msg includes the full nested layout
> 
>         - contains IFLA_VF_PORTs for all VFs of a PF
>         - OR, contains IFLA_PORT_SELF if PF is it's own VF
> 
>         - it's up to the receiver to compare for changes for each VF
> 
>     - RTM_GETLINK msg includes the full nested layout
> 
>         - same rules as RTM_SETLINK above
> 
> I think we should redo the other IFLA_VF_xxx msgs in the same style.  I'm
> not going to tackle that for IFLA_VF_PORTS patch, but it would be a good
> followup patch.

Patrick layed out some nice details before.  Here's the link:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/151605/focus=151738

thanks,
-chris