> * Scott Feldman (
scofeldm@cisco.com) wrote:
> > From: Scott Feldman <scofeldm@cisco.com>
> >
> > Add new netdev ops ndo_{set|get}_vf_port to allow setting of
> > port-profile on a netdev interface. Extends netlink socket RTM_SETLINK/
> > RTM_GETLINK with two new sub msgs called IFLA_VF_PORTS and IFLA_PORT_SELF
> > (added to end of IFLA_cmd list). These are both nested atrtibutes
> > using this layout:
> >
> > [IFLA_NUM_VF]
> > [IFLA_VF_PORTS]
> > [IFLA_VF_PORT]
> > [IFLA_PORT_*], ...
> > [IFLA_VF_PORT]
> > [IFLA_PORT_*], ...
> > ...
> > [IFLA_PORT_SELF]
> > [IFLA_PORT_*], ...
> >
> > These attributes are design to be set and get symmetrically. VF_PORTS
> > is a list of VF_PORTs, one for each VF, when dealing with an SR-IOV
> > device. PORT_SELF is for the PF of the SR-IOV device, in case it wants
> > to also have a port-profile, or for the case where the VF==PF, like in
> > enic patch 2/2 of this patch set.
> >
> > A port-profile is used to configure/enable the external switch virtual port
> > backing the netdev interface, not to configure the host-facing side of the
> > netdev. A port-profile is an identifier known to the switch. How port-
> > profiles are installed on the switch or how available port-profiles are
> > made know to the host is outside the scope of this patch.
> >
> > There are two types of port-profiles specs in the netlink msg. The first spec
> > is for 802.1Qbg (pre-)standard, VDP protocol. The second spec is for devices
> > that run a similar protocol as VDP but in firmware, thus hiding the protocol
> > details. In either case, the specs have much in common and makes sense to
> > define the netlink msg as the union of the two specs. For example, both specs
> > have a notition of associating/deassociating a port-profile. And both specs
> > require some information from the hypervisor manager, such as client port
> > instance ID.
> >
> > The general flow is the port-profile is applied to a host netdev interface
> > using RTM_SETLINK, the receiver of the RTM_SETLINK msg communicates with the
> > switch, and the switch virtual port backing the host netdev interface is
> > configured/enabled based on the settings defined by the port-profile. What
> > those settings comprise, and how those settings are managed is again
> > outside the scope of this patch, since this patch only deals with the
> > first step in the flow.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman <scofeldm@cisco.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu<roprabhu@cisco.com>
>
> Assuming the SR-IOV VFINFO changes go in there will be some minor patch
> conflicts to be sorted out.
