From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 00/10] Add support for resource abstraction Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:37:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20171227093754.GB1997@nanopsycho> References: <20171226112359.5313-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20171227080902.GA1997@nanopsycho> <20171227082331.GA10517@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Ahern , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, arkadis@mellanox.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, michael.chan@broadcom.com, ganeshgr@chelsio.com, saeedm@mellanox.com, matanb@mellanox.com, leonro@mellanox.com, idosch@mellanox.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, simon.horman@netronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@netronome.com, john.hurley@netronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, gospo@broadcom.com, steven.lin1@broadcom.com, yuvalm@mellanox.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com To: Andrew Lunn Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f170.google.com ([209.85.128.170]:39496 "EHLO mail-wr0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750998AbdL0Jh5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Dec 2017 04:37:57 -0500 Received: by mail-wr0-f170.google.com with SMTP id o101so7661566wrb.6 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 01:37:57 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171227082331.GA10517@lunn.ch> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:23:31AM CET, andrew@lunn.ch wrote: >> >$ devlink resource show pci/0000:03:00.0 >> >pci/0000:03:00.0: >> > name kvd size 245760 size_valid true >> > resources: >> > name linear size 98304 occ 0 >> > name hash_double size 60416 >> > name hash_single size 87040 >> > >> >So this 2700 has 3 resources that can be managed -- some table or >> >resource or something named 'kvd' with linear, hash_double and >> >hash_single sub-resources. What are these names referring too? The above >> >output gives no description, and 'kvd' is not an industry term. Further, >> >> This are internal resources specific to the ASIC. Would you like some >> description to each or something like that? > >The fact you have decided to expose them means you expect people to >change them. So yes, they need to be documented. Maybe add something >to Documentation/ABI/stable/ > >> So the showed relation to dpipe table would be enougn or you would still >> like to see some description? I don't like the description concept here >> as the relations to dpipe table should tell user exactly what he needs >> to know. > >Documenting the ABI is good practice. This is misunderstanding I believe. This is not about ABI. That is well defined by the netlink attributes. This is about meaning of particular ASIC-specific internal resources. > > Andrew >