Re: [net-next-2.6 V8 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port management (was iovnl)

[Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>]

* Scott Feldman (scofeldm@cisco.com) wrote:
> From: Scott Feldman <scofeldm@cisco.com>
> 
> Add new netdev ops ndo_{set|get}_vf_port to allow setting of
> port-profile on a netdev interface.  Extends netlink socket RTM_SETLINK/
> RTM_GETLINK with two new sub msgs called IFLA_VF_PORTS and IFLA_PORT_SELF
> (added to end of IFLA_cmd list).  These are both nested atrtibutes
> using this layout:
> 
>               [IFLA_NUM_VF]
>               [IFLA_VF_PORTS]
>                       [IFLA_VF_PORT]
>                               [IFLA_PORT_*], ...
>                       [IFLA_VF_PORT]
>                               [IFLA_PORT_*], ...
>                       ...
>               [IFLA_PORT_SELF]
>                       [IFLA_PORT_*], ...
> 
> These attributes are design to be set and get symmetrically.  VF_PORTS
> is a list of VF_PORTs, one for each VF, when dealing with an SR-IOV
> device.  PORT_SELF is for the PF of the SR-IOV device, in case it wants
> to also have a port-profile, or for the case where the VF==PF, like in
> enic patch 2/2 of this patch set.
> 
> A port-profile is used to configure/enable the external switch virtual port
> backing the netdev interface, not to configure the host-facing side of the
> netdev.  A port-profile is an identifier known to the switch.  How port-
> profiles are installed on the switch or how available port-profiles are
> made know to the host is outside the scope of this patch.
> 
> There are two types of port-profiles specs in the netlink msg.  The first spec
> is for 802.1Qbg (pre-)standard, VDP protocol.  The second spec is for devices
> that run a similar protocol as VDP but in firmware, thus hiding the protocol
> details.  In either case, the specs have much in common and makes sense to
> define the netlink msg as the union of the two specs.  For example, both specs
> have a notition of associating/deassociating a port-profile.  And both specs
> require some information from the hypervisor manager, such as client port
> instance ID.
> 
> The general flow is the port-profile is applied to a host netdev interface
> using RTM_SETLINK, the receiver of the RTM_SETLINK msg communicates with the
> switch, and the switch virtual port backing the host netdev interface is
> configured/enabled based on the settings defined by the port-profile.  What
> those settings comprise, and how those settings are managed is again
> outside the scope of this patch, since this patch only deals with the
> first step in the flow.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman <scofeldm@cisco.com>
> Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu<roprabhu@cisco.com>

Assuming the SR-IOV VFINFO changes go in there will be some minor patch
conflicts to be sorted out.

Acked-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>