Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 2/2] add ndo_set_port_profile op support for enic dynamic vnics

[Scott Feldman <scofeldm@cisco.com>]

On 4/29/10 8:48 AM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:

> I believe Chris is the one that was pushing most for having a single interface
> for both VDP/LLDPAD and enic.
> While I now understand your reasons for doing it in firmware and requiring the
> kernel interface in addition to the user interface, my doubts on whether VDP
> and your protocol should be part of the same interface are increasing.
> 
> While I'm convinced that you can make it work for both now, the alternative
> to split the two may turn out to be cleaner. We'd still be able to do
> either of the two in kernel or user space. Using iproute2 syntax to describe
> this again, it would mean an interface like
> 
>    ip iov set  port-profile DEVICE [ base BASE-DEVICE ] name PORT-PROFILE
>                              [ host_uuid HOST_UUID ]
>                      [ client_name CLIENT_NAME ]
>                                       [ client_uuid CLIENT_UUID ]
>    ip iov set  vsi { associate | pre-associate | pre-associate-rr }
> BASE-DEVICE
>                                       vsi MGR:VTID:VER
>                                       mac LLADDR [ vlan VID ]
>                                       client_uuid CLIENT_UUID
> 
>    ip iov del  port_profile DEVICE      [ base BASE-DEVICE ]
>    ip iov del  vsi          BASE-DEVICE [ mac LLADDR [ vlan VID ] ]
>        [ client_uuid CLIENT_UUID ]
> 
>    ip iov show port_profile DEVICE      [ base BASE-DEVICE ]
>    ip iov show vsi          BASE-DEVICE [ mac LLADDR [ vlan VID ] ]
> [ client_uuid CLIENT_UUID ]
> 
> You would obvioulsy only implement the kernel support for the port-profile
> stuff as callbacks, because no driver yet does VDP in the kernel, but we
> should
> have a common netlink header that defines both variants.
> 
> Chris, any opinion on this interface as opposed to the combined one?
> Either one should work, but splitting it seems cleaner to me.

I haven't seen Chris's response, but it seems vger was down for awhile, so
maybe it's coming.  Assuming we go for the split design, we're still talking
about using RTM_SETLINK/RTM_GETLINK/RTM_DELLINK for these netlink msgs?  Or
are you suggesting by your cmd syntax that we return to
RTM_SETIOV/RTM_GETIOV like in the first iovnl patch?  RTM_SET/GET/DELLINK is
probably simplier, cleaner patch.

-scott