From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: RFC: rtnetlink problems with Cisco enic and VFs Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20140422.141200.1878796491205301689.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20140422141425.127dabd3c63482a6a655469e@redhat.com> <1398189799.7767.80.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dgibson@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, benve@cisco.com, ssujith@cisco.com, govindarajulu90@gmail.com, neepatel@cisco.com, nistrive@cisco.com To: ben@decadent.org.uk Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:42637 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750897AbaDVSMD (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:12:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1398189799.7767.80.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Ben Hutchings Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:03:19 +0100 > On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 14:14 +1000, David Gibson wrote: >> I believe I've found a problem with netlink handling which can be >> triggered on Cisco enic devices with a large number (30-40) of virtual >> functions. I believe this is the cause of a real customer problem >> we've seen. >> >> * When requesting a list of interfaces with RTM_GETLINK, enic devices >> (and currently, _only_ enic devices) report IFLA_VF_PORTS >> information >> >> * IFLA_VF_PORTS information has at least 90 bytes ber virtual function >> >> * Unlike IFLA_VFINFO_LIST, the ports information is always reported, >> regardless of the setting of the IFLA_EXT_MASK parameter > [...] > > So I think you should make reporting of IFLA_VF_PORTS dependent on the > same flag as IFLA_VFINFO_LIST. I think that's what we'll have to do.