From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 00/12] devlink: introduce port flavours and common phys_port_name generation Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:17:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20180328061754.GA2012@nanopsycho> References: <20180322105522.8186-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20180327220234.489a54fa@xeon-e3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, idosch@mellanox.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com, andrew@lunn.ch, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, michael.chan@broadcom.com, ganeshgr@chelsio.com, saeedm@mellanox.com, simon.horman@netronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@netronome.com, john.hurley@netronome.com, dirk.vandermerwe@netronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, dsahern@gmail.com, vijaya.guvva@cavium.com, satananda.burla@cavium.com, raghu.vatsavayi@cavium.com, felix.manlunas@cavium.com, gospo@broadcom.com, sathya.perla@broadcom.com, vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com, tariqt@mellanox.com, eranbe@mellanox.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:39125 "EHLO mail-wm0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750732AbeC1GR4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2018 02:17:56 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id f125so2849648wme.4 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180327220234.489a54fa@xeon-e3> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:02:34AM CEST, stephen@networkplumber.org wrote: >On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:55:10 +0100 >Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> From: Jiri Pirko >> >> This patchset resolves 2 issues we have right now: >> 1) There are many netdevices / ports in the system, for port, pf, vf >> represenatation but the user has no way to see which is which > >There already are a lot of attributes, adding more doesn't necessarily >help make things clearer. How elso you distinguish pfrep/vfrep/cpuport/etc? > >> 2) The ndo_get_phys_port_name is implemented in each driver separatelly, >> which may lead to inconsistent names between drivers. > >Why not address that problem. My concern is that your new attribute >will have the same problem. I try to address that... > >Also adding pf and vfNNN on the name will make the already tightly squeezed >interface name length a real problem. I have had arguments with people >trying use VLAN 4000 and standard naming policy. Which means you really >can't go that long. Understood. However, I just do what is already done in nfp for example.