On 5/14/10 10:29 AM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:

quoted text
> On Friday 14 May 2010 19:19:00 Scott Feldman wrote:
>> 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 was thinking that a device could have both IFLA_VF_PORTS and IFLA_PORT_SELF,
> but you know more about the IOV specifics. If an adapter having multiple
> VFs always gets configured as VF 0 itself, that would be fine as well,
> otherwise
> we could have an extra argument to the two device driver callbacks to
> differentiate VF/SELF. As long as this does not impact the user ABI, we
> could do either.

I think you're right.  I should have said AND/OR.  I would rather not have
an extra argument to the driver callbacks.
  
quoted text
>> 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.
> 
> I fear it's too late for that now. While we have not yet released 2.6.34
> and 2.6.33 does not contain the broken message, it's extremely late in the
> stabilization phase of v2.6.34, so I doubt that there is still a chance for
> that at this point.

That's too bad.  I wish Patrick's objections were honored and then we
wouldn't have followed that broken model!  Can the broken msgs be disabled
somehow for 2.6.34?  Keep the definitions in if_link.h but fail the SET/GET
actions in rtnetlink.c?

-scott

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html