From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: RFC: rtnetlink problems with Cisco enic and VFs Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:26:06 +1000 Message-ID: <20140423092606.c73425b64d127b8f94469fcb@redhat.com> References: <20140422141425.127dabd3c63482a6a655469e@redhat.com> <1398189799.7767.80.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <20140422.141200.1878796491205301689.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Wed__23_Apr_2014_09_26_06_+1000_fiRg+AmX=aez_wGQ" Cc: ben@decadent.org.uk, netdev@vger.kernel.org, benve@cisco.com, ssujith@cisco.com, govindarajulu90@gmail.com, neepatel@cisco.com, nistrive@cisco.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26255 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751314AbaDVX00 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:26:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140422.141200.1878796491205301689.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --Signature=_Wed__23_Apr_2014_09_26_06_+1000_fiRg+AmX=aez_wGQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:12:00 -0400 (EDT) David Miller wrote: > From: Ben Hutchings > Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:03:19 +0100 >=20 > > 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. > >>=20 > >> * When requesting a list of interfaces with RTM_GETLINK, enic devices > >> (and currently, _only_ enic devices) report IFLA_VF_PORTS > >> information=20 > >>=20 > >> * IFLA_VF_PORTS information has at least 90 bytes ber virtual function > >>=20 > >> * Unlike IFLA_VFINFO_LIST, the ports information is always reported, > >> regardless of the setting of the IFLA_EXT_MASK parameter > > [...] > >=20 > > So I think you should make reporting of IFLA_VF_PORTS dependent on the > > same flag as IFLA_VFINFO_LIST. >=20 > 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? --=20 David Gibson --Signature=_Wed__23_Apr_2014_09_26_06_+1000_fiRg+AmX=aez_wGQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTVvqOAAoJEGw4ysog2bOSd9wP/2aWgW4ORf/TSR3eqG2++CHl l226qvSL/FidiXbzZ0wSu5voUuKN2Bah0w6twqBuFGvQrtfQ6ROVzV6ziGtkQ/rw VP1zF8SrFr3vbiLeuTHl3AoylsD5iaHPsC+5oZuKf6EUbLv7zWIIzZ0ShOPWaEhH OVYMc/HlKxVspp/z6Ft0hoGF2Yn/r1G7k5z4qRQU/W1XqcAay+zIoW8TULnoy9qT CxExGG2pRtJsbOieMMJkbBdPHrCsmULNjMf4KFPHcVjv9J1I8SKJ4FvUDbIAKfXm iBU5bogGE4v9NJOGrT2sIV9quy8cy2oebg44HdrPzEqnJkCDYxUX9bPeKhAZ1Q51 97O6RicDjEyBuzmu8pxZ34uj72IyA/qgo5vqMyc3ZkbiPD+dW3a+CyJUUv/3Ct4X lIGycSK9m9th5CHKC+YNojYNrvT2SvhrNSAFu730aM+NPQ6JGJNsu+m0O67/ojbi m8kuzeXiSxE8SzkU/toH2BT/i7VXNh4ToQgHhZMpduYydOyIFa50Hat70hhyiDWE rZTkX2y/xaNNSwbyYuyvOAoNscHOOEV1OO0mf9Nh1+4CJ/+ACS87PVjqJNgcRk3s 3B92z4Big/0UhLWFE6MHbpCQEAeYVkOKHL6MM+OCT63Nk36emeR/X2viFfxKUQpu msFelYB4g5/swJ91odnv =wble -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Wed__23_Apr_2014_09_26_06_+1000_fiRg+AmX=aez_wGQ--