From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>
Subject: Re: SRIOV switchdev mode BoF minutes
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:05:31 -0700
Message-ID: <64cca3cd-5592-8210-54c4-ed28c284ae5d@intel.com>
References: <CAJ3xEMgnWxi0Uo5j3bDg4eW2vjeeriT7kuq4fzZmLT0bNrMCkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Anjali Singhai Jain <anjali.singhai@intel.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <gospo@broadcom.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@broadcom.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com>,
        Rony Efraim <ronye@mellanox.com>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@gmail.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:19003 "EHLO mga14.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752736AbeDLRFc (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:05:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3xEMgnWxi0Uo5j3bDg4eW2vjeeriT7kuq4fzZmLT0bNrMCkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 11/12/2017 11:49 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Hi Dave and all,
>
> During and after the BoF on SRIOV switchdev mode, we came into a
> consensus among the developers from four different HW vendors (CC
> audience) that a correct thing to do would be to disallow any new
> extensions to the legacy mode.
>
> The idea is to put focus on the new mode and not add new UAPIs and
> kernel code which was turned to be a wrong design which does not allow
> for properly offloading a kernel switching SW model to e-switch HW.
>
> We also had a good session the day after regarding alignment for the
> representation model of the uplink (physical port) and PF/s.
>
> The VF representor netdevs  exist for all drivers that support the new
> mode but the representation for the uplink and PF wasn't the same for
> all. The decision was to represent the uplink and PFs vports in the
> same manner done for VFs, using rep netdevs. This alignment would
> provide a more strict and clear view of the kernel model for e-switch
> to users and upper layer control plane SW.
>
I don't see any changes in the Mellanox/other drivers to move to this new model to enable
the uplink and PF port representors, any updates?

It would be really nice to highlight the pros and cons of the old versus the
new model.

We are looking into adding switchdev support for our new 100Gb ice driver and could
use some feedback on the direction we should be taking.

Thanks
Sridhar