From: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>
To: Shmulik Ravid <shmulikr@broadcom.com>
Cc: "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-2.6 PATCH 1/2] net: dcbnl: remove redundant DCB_CAP_DCBX_STATIC bit
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:46:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D3D123F.40700@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1295801600.25104.13.camel@lb-tlvb-shmulik.il.broadcom.com>
On 1/23/2011 8:53 AM, Shmulik Ravid wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 18:52 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>> On 1/21/2011 6:35 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
>>> Remove redundant DCB_CAP_DCBX_STATIC bit in DCB capabilities
>>>
>>> Setting this bit indicates that no embedded DCBx engine is
>>> present and the hardware can not be configured. This is the
>>> same as having none of the DCB capability flags set or simply
>>> not implementing the dcbnl ops at all.
>>>
>>> This patch removes this bit. The bit has not made a stable
>>> release yet so removing it should not be an issue with
>>> existing apps.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>
>>> CC: Shmulik Ravid <shmulikr@broadcom.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>
>> Shmulik, could you ACK this because you added these bits? But
>> I was adding support for this in lldpad and I see no reason that
>> we need these?
>>
> DCB_CAP_DCBX_STATIC means that the embedded engine will turn the user
> configuration into the operational configuration without performing the
> actual negotiation, so it is not equivalent to not having an embedded
> DCBx engine. This is mostly a debug and integration option as it allows
> you to do DCB related or dependent testing and development without
> having a proper DCBx peer.
>
> On second thought, I'm not sure this option is justified although we
> found it useful during our development. If you think it's not useful
> enough (or not at all) then by all means remove it.
We have an advertise bit in userspace that can be set and cleared to
do something similar for host based agents. I think for pg and application
data you can get the same behavior by setting the device to not willing.
However for PFC it could potentially be useful. But how would the
user set this mode? This is a capabilities bit indicating the device
supports this. Is there a way to subsequently put the device in this
mode?
--John
>
> Thanks,
> Shmulik
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-24 5:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-22 2:35 [net-2.6 PATCH 1/2] net: dcbnl: remove redundant DCB_CAP_DCBX_STATIC bit John Fastabend
2011-01-22 2:35 ` [net-2.6 PATCH 2/2] dcbnl: make get_app handling symmetric for IEEE and CEE DCBx John Fastabend
2011-01-24 23:20 ` David Miller
2011-01-22 2:52 ` [net-2.6 PATCH 1/2] net: dcbnl: remove redundant DCB_CAP_DCBX_STATIC bit John Fastabend
2011-01-23 16:53 ` Shmulik Ravid
2011-01-24 5:46 ` John Fastabend [this message]
2011-01-24 15:27 ` Shmulik Ravid
2011-01-24 15:52 ` John Fastabend
2011-01-24 23:19 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D3D123F.40700@intel.com \
--to=john.r.fastabend@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shmulikr@broadcom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).