Re: RFC: rtnetlink problems with Cisco enic and VFs

[David Gibson <dgibson@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1247 bytes --]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
> 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.

Ok, makes logical sense.

But does anyone know what tools make use of the IFLA_VF_PORTS
information?  Do they set the IFLA_EXT_MASK already?

-- 
David Gibson <dgibson@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]