Re: [patch net-next 0/4] net/mlx5: expose peer SF devlink instance

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 05:28:33PM CEST, kuba@kernel.org wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 08:36:06 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >I'm thinking about containers. Since the SF configuration is currently
>> >completely vendor ad-hoc I'm trying to establish who's supposed to be
>> >in control of the devlink instance of an SF - orchestrator or the
>> >workload. We should pick one and force everyone to fall in line.  
>> 
>> I think that both are valid. In the VF case, the workload (VM) owns the
>> devlink instance and netdev. In the SF case:
>> 1) It could be the same. You can reload SF into netns, then
>>    the container has them both. That would provide the container
>>    more means (e.g. configuration of rdma,netdev,vdev etc).
>> 2) Or, your can only put netdev into netns.
>
>Okay, can you document that?
>
>> Both usecases are valid. But back to my question regarding to this
>> patchsets. Do you see the need to expose netns for nested port function
>> devlink instance? Even now, I still don't.
>
>It's not a huge deal but what's the problem with adding the netns id?
>It's probably 50 LoC, trivial stuff.

Not so trivial after all, with the locking and objects lifecycle
(port can disappear before nested instance). Uff.