Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next] docs: net: add an explanation of VF (and other) Representors

[Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>]

On 18/08/2022 10:56, Marcin Szycik wrote:
> On 15-Aug-22 16:22, ecree@xilinx.com wrote:
> 
>> Just as each port of a Linux-controlled
>> +switch has a separate netdev, so each virtual function has one.  When the system
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but this sentence seems a bit confusing. Maybe:
> "Just as each port of a Linux-controlled switch has a separate netdev, each virtual
> function has one."?

Kuba wrote this paragraph and tbh it makes sense to me.
But how about "Just as each port of a Linux-controlled switch has a
 separate netdev, so does each virtual function."?

>> +As a simple example, if ``eth0`` is the master PF's netdevice and ``eth1`` is a
>> +VF representor, the following rules::
>> +
>> +    tc filter add dev eth1 parent ffff: protocol ipv4 flower \
>> +        action mirred egress redirect dev eth0
>> +    tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ipv4 flower \
>> +        action mirred egress mirror dev eth1
> 
> Perhaps eth0/eth1 names could be replaced with more meaningful names, as it's easy
> to confuse them now. How about examples from above (e.g. PF -> eth4, PR -> eth4pf1vf2rep)?
> Or just $PF_NETDEV, $PR_NETDEV.

Yeah, I can replace them with $VARIABLES.

-ed