From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wright Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 V7 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port management (was iovnl) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 10:35:30 -0700 Message-ID: <20100514173530.GI5798@x200.localdomain> References: <4BED7D64.3070500@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Patrick McHardy , Arnd Bergmann , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, chrisw@redhat.com To: Scott Feldman Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45601 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757077Ab0ENRfj (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2010 13:35:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Scott Feldman (scofeldm@cisco.com) wrote: > On 5/14/10 9:42 AM, "Patrick McHardy" 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