From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 0/6 v4] macvlan: MAC Address filtering support for passthru mode Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:50:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20120202085037.GA26085@redhat.com> References: <1321575301.2749.51.camel@bwh-desktop> <20120202072448.GA25403@redhat.com> <4F2A4D81.6070002@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Roopa Prabhu , Ben Hutchings , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, chrisw@redhat.com, sri@us.ibm.com, dragos.tatulea@gmail.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, gregory.v.rose@intel.com, mchan@broadcom.com, dwang2@cisco.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, kaber@trash.net, benve@cisco.com To: John Fastabend Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56385 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753755Ab2BBIvI (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 03:51:08 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F2A4D81.6070002@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 12:46:57AM -0800, John Fastabend wrote: > On 2/1/2012 11:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:30:24AM -0800, Roopa Prabhu wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 11/17/11 4:15 PM, "Ben Hutchings" wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry to come to this rather late. > >>> > >>> On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 23:55 -0800, Roopa Prabhu wrote: > >>> [...] > >>>> v2 -> v3 > >>>> - Moved set and get filter ops from rtnl_link_ops to netdev_ops > >>>> - Support for SRIOV VFs. > >>>> [Note: The get filters msg (in the way current get rtnetlink handles > >>>> it) might get too big for SRIOV vfs. This patch follows existing > >>>> sriov > >>>> vf get code and tries to accomodate filters for all VF's in a PF. > >>>> And for the SRIOV case I have only tested the fact that the VF > >>>> arguments are getting delivered to rtnetlink correctly. The code > >>>> follows existing sriov vf handling code so rest of it should work > >>>> fine] > >>> [...] > >>> > >>> This is already broken for large numbers of VFs, and increasing the > >>> amount of information per VF is going to make the situation worse. I am > >>> no netlink expert but I think that the current approach of bundling all > >>> information about an interface in a single message may not be > >>> sustainable. > >> > >> Yes agreed. I have the same concern. > > > > So it seems that we need to extend the existing interface to allow > > tweaking filters per VF. Does it need to block this > > patchset though? After all, we'll need to support the existing > > hmm not sure I follow what patchset is this blocking? The one you are replying to.