From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Feldman Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 V7 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port management (was iovnl) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 10:19:00 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4BED7D64.3070500@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , To: Patrick McHardy , Arnd Bergmann Return-path: Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70]:34784 "EHLO sj-iport-1.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755069Ab0ENRTE (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 May 2010 13:19:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BED7D64.3070500@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. Do we have a plan? -scott