From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 V7 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port management (was iovnl) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 19:26:42 +0200 Message-ID: <4BED87D2.3070308@trash.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Arnd Bergmann , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, chrisw@redhat.com To: Scott Feldman Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:49429 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753921Ab0ENR0n (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2010 13:26:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Scott Feldman wrote: > On 5/14/10 9:42 AM, "Patrick McHardy" wrote: > >> Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> Maybe a better structure would be to separate the two cases, also allowing >>> a port profile to be associated with both the PF and with each of its VFs? >>> >>> Something like this: >>> >>> [IFLA_NUM_VF] >>> [IFLA_VF_PORTS] >>> [IFLA_VF_PORT] >>> [IFLA_VF_PORT_*], ... >>> [IFLA_VF_PORT] >>> [IFLA_VF_PORT_*], ... >>> [IFLA_PORT_SELF] >>> [IFLA_VF_PORT_*], ... >> That would also be fine. > > I want to make sure I've got this right before starting on ver8 of patch: > > - we'll use the layout listed above > > - RTM_SETLINK msg includes the full nested layout > > - contains IFLA_VF_PORTs for all VFs of a PF > - OR, contains IFLA_PORT_SELF if PF is it's own VF > > - it's up to the receiver to compare for changes for each VF > > - RTM_GETLINK msg includes the full nested layout > > - same rules as RTM_SETLINK above > > I think we should redo the other IFLA_VF_xxx msgs in the same style. I'm > not going to tackle that for IFLA_VF_PORTS patch, but it would be a good > followup patch. Agreed. > Do we have a plan? That sounds good to me. If you have any netlink related questions, just let me know.