From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [RFC] hv_netvsc: automatically name slave VF network device Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:51:26 -0800 Message-ID: <20171219145126.7511f2de@xeon-e3> References: <20171219193537.22587-1-sthemmin@microsoft.com> <20171219123234.683f9b8d@cakuba.netronome.com> <20171219124425.56033614@xeon-e3> <20171219131816.70645a7b@cakuba.netronome.com> <20171219132949.57926170@xeon-e3> <20171219135529.62800475@cakuba.netronome.com> <20171219140659.39f6cc1c@xeon-e3> <20171219142452.0f708189@cakuba.netronome.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger , Jiri Pirko To: Jakub Kicinski Return-path: Received: from mail-pl0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:41289 "EHLO mail-pl0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751496AbdLSWv2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:51:28 -0500 Received: by mail-pl0-f46.google.com with SMTP id g2so7874904pli.8 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:51:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20171219142452.0f708189@cakuba.netronome.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:24:52 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:06:59 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > > > I assume you mean the modern application is udev, and it works > > > > > > but the name is meaningless because it based of synthetic PCI > > > > > > information. The PCI host adapter is simulated for pass through > > > > > > devices. Names like enp12s0. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since every passthrough VF device on Hyper-V/Azure has a matching > > > > > > synthetic network device with same mac address. It is best to > > > > > > have the relationship shown in the name. > > > > > > > > > > How about we make the VF drivers expose "vf" as phys_port_name? > > > > > Then systemd/udev should glue that onto the name regardless of > > > > > how the VF is used. > > > > > > > > One of the goals was not to modify in any way other drivers (like VF). > > > > > > Why? Do you have out-of-tree drivers you can't change or some such? > > > > This needs to work on enterprise distributions; plus it is not good > > practice to introduce random changes into partners like Mellanox > > drivers. > > Are we talking about Linux or Windows kernel here? I don't think > this requires hypervisor changes? The notion of a "partner" and > changing drivers by people who are not employed by a vendor being > bad practice sounds entirely foreign to me. Minor bug fixes sure, but changing semantics requires consultation. Vendors like Intel and Mellanox have code bases that feed upstream. > If we agree that marking VF interfaces is useful (and I think > it is) then we should mark them always, not only when they are > enslaved to a magic bond. And the natural way of doing that > seems to be phys_port_name.