From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D2C534DCD9; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 14:19:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773325158; cv=none; b=QPaZTCRBNQMfUIm7WyY4GJ7/QEcIuNYlYqrIJBbi/G+VoXnLNAMUmTBndAtkKcMwggR6PvqTLeV6aoU4lbLK4B4XvY4A5xLz5jJ5i517NX4DDdTSzrcgrZvQ1DOSQTC38Tm1P0DwShHkX4EEmDn4uKdZ8Gr89aVOAFJ9b8xlRHo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773325158; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6h3zKnDlTMVm2UbvFLw0atWxFuDz3SlZDxNgMu4GaDc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hUjlF1Owml+P1tmpNcsH1hLD5J1U7uzmYdXME9tUa+pE7T32AKx5RdQCMSNSSRBncgg6aJWZOlh/v12W/11QxD16PsnYC0tswz5eJ8olHvHId9+oezXoPmTQruNKb0jOn5avmuxVNyxpg9xt7EBX3JyaqB5ckiYxgtZNgYjMDSU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=l4l/C086; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="l4l/C086" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25C39C19424; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 14:19:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1773325158; bh=6h3zKnDlTMVm2UbvFLw0atWxFuDz3SlZDxNgMu4GaDc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=l4l/C086zILQkEVCakaW+fO8LQtTWR6rL2OkKJeOKSUCjiRuwJpf0oDBbBm6UJ76S lPzUs42gvssurLdoodaO3huvyoEhYk2Njb0gczJaqURIk8EUlUftEbRkE1tymHiukP O0eDMwx0JlX5OuBNDeAFw3mTRpFH56a13+DyKw+z99K6gCK9CajXPk+j/6e+tuD7iq o9aGWoTXTgrIsTmKDGCSdbx0DWBvXFHcWZmtqkkg/K0HPjig56VgWkKa6WBdsTQcbU S/3urzs9APxQUarYR9ccERWgjr+6CcxWd9EXFM7JrReJTOJCqZT+vi1QXuJpTjVC5u eEXcQjL1qmagw== Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 07:19:16 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Jiri Pirko Cc: Or Har-Toov , Tariq Toukan , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Donald Hunter , Jonathan Corbet , Saeed Mahameed , Leon Romanovsky , Mark Bloch , Shuah Khan , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Gal Pressman , Dragos Tatulea , Shay Drory , Jiri Pirko , Moshe Shemesh Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3 00/10] devlink: add per-port resource support Message-ID: <20260312071916.6b759c3f@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20260304101522.09da1f58@kernel.org> <20260305063729.7e40775d@kernel.org> <20260306120301.0ebe1ab2@kernel.org> <74dcd7c5-8a2b-49a7-a23c-174d17a61955@nvidia.com> <20260309133341.7e08b35d@kernel.org> <5de5103e-e2e4-4b72-9c3c-22847728fbb8@nvidia.com> <20260311145126.7dcca532@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:34:52 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> devlink resource show scope dev > >> pci/0000:03:00.0: > >> > >> pci/0000:03:00.1: > >> > > > >LGTM > > I don't see the benefit of exposing the scope to the user to be honest. > I mean, dump would show all, dump with "dev" handle would be used as a > selector to dump only things related to "dev". What is the use case of > this "scope" granularity? If we follow the logic that dump should show the user relevant resources, no matter which sub-object they are attached to - having a dev specified should only filter the objects to match the dev, including resources which are on ports of that dev. IDK if there's a strong use case for allowing the user to set scope on CLI but also - I don't see why not? > >> For the do-it command: > >> devlink resource show pci/0000:03:00.0 > >> pci/0000:03:00.0: > >> > >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196608: > >> > >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196609: > >> > >> > >> devlink resource show pci/0000:03:00.0 scope port > >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196608: > >> > >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196609: > >> > >> > >> devlink resource show pci/0000:03:00.0 scope dev > >> pci/0000:03:00.0: > >> > > > >Do we have to touch doit? Maybe we should let doit be what it is now > >and consider it legacy going forward? doit which is in fact a filtered > >dump is a bit of a mistake in the first place, from Netlink's > >perspective. > > I don't think we should. If user wants doit, he is going to specify the > object (dev/port). If user is interested only in things related to > single device, he should do dump with selector (dev). Could you confirm that you're agreeing that we should leave doit as is? I'm not 100% sure after reading this twice :)