Re: [PATCH net-next] team: add ethtool get_link_ksettings

[Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:08:23AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >+static int team_ethtool_get_link_ksettings(struct net_device *dev,
> >+					   struct ethtool_link_ksettings *cmd)
> >+{
> >+	struct team *team= netdev_priv(dev);
> >+	unsigned long speed = 0;
> >+	struct team_port *port;
> >+
> >+	cmd->base.duplex = DUPLEX_UNKNOWN;
> >+	cmd->base.port = PORT_OTHER;
> >+
> >+	list_for_each_entry(port, &team->port_list, list) {
> >+		if (team_port_txable(port)) {
> >+			if (port->state.speed != SPEED_UNKNOWN)
> >+				speed += port->state.speed;
> >+			if (cmd->base.duplex == DUPLEX_UNKNOWN &&
> >+			    port->state.duplex != DUPLEX_UNKNOWN)
> >+				cmd->base.duplex = port->state.duplex;
> 
> What is exactly the point of this patch? Why do you need such
> information. This is hw-related info. If you simply sum-up all txable
> ports, the value is always highly misleading.
> 
> For example for hash-based port selection with 2 100Mbit ports,
> you will get 200Mbit, but it is not true. It is up to the traffic and
> hash function what is the actual TX speed you can get.
> On the RX side, this is even more misleading as the actual speed depends
> on the other side of the wire.

The number is the maximum speed in theory. I added it because someone
said bond interface could show total speed while team could not...
The usage is customer could get team link-speed and throughput via SNMP.

Thanks
Hangbin
> 
> 
> >+		}
> >+	}
> >+	cmd->base.speed = speed ? : SPEED_UNKNOWN;
> >+
> >+	return 0;
> >+}
> >+
> > static const struct ethtool_ops team_ethtool_ops = {
> > 	.get_drvinfo		= team_ethtool_get_drvinfo,
> > 	.get_link		= ethtool_op_get_link,
> >+	.get_link_ksettings	= team_ethtool_get_link_ksettings,
> > };
> > 
> > /***********************
> >-- 
> >2.19.2
> >