Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 1/2] devlink: expose port function commands to assign VFs to multiple netdevs

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 12:36:53PM CET, simon.horman@corigine.com wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 01:21:22PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 06:42:27PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > On Mon,  6 Feb 2023 16:36:02 +0100 Simon Horman wrote:
>> > > +VF assignment setup
>> > > +---------------------------
>> > > +In some cases, NICs could have multiple physical ports per PF. Users can assign VFs to
>> > > +different ports.
>> > 
>> > Please make sure you run make htmldocs when changing docs,
>> > this will warn.
>> > 
>> > > +- Get count of VFs assigned to physical port::
>> > > +
>> > > +    $ devlink port show pci/0000:82:00.0/0
>> > > +    pci/0000:82:00.0/0: type eth netdev enp130s0np0 flavour physical port 0 splittable true lanes 4
>> > 
>> > Physical port has VFs? My knee jerk reaction is that allocating
>> > resources via devlink is fine but this seems to lean a bit into
>> > forwarding. How do other vendors do it? What's the mapping of VFs
>> > to ports?
>> 
>> I don't understand the meaning of VFs here. If we are talking about PCI
>> VFs, other vendors follow PCI spec "9.3.3.3.1 VF Enable" section, which
>> talks about having one bit to enable all VFs at once. All these VFs will
>> have separate netdevs.
>
>Yes, that is the case here too (before and after).
>
>What we are talking about is the association of VFs to physical ports
>(in the case where a NIC has more than one physical port).

What is "the association"?