RE: [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control
From: Skidmore, Donald C
Date: Mon Feb 23 2015 - 09:30:04 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Cree [mailto:ecree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 5:53 AM
> To: Skidmore, Donald C
> Cc: Hiroshi Shimamoto; vyasevic@xxxxxxxxxx; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Alexander
> Duyck; BjÃrn Mork; e1000-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Choi, Sy Jong; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David
> Laight; Hayato Momma
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control
> On 20/02/15 21:05, Skidmore, Donald C wrote:
> > If a vender specific interface is objectionable maybe a simpler and more
> generic interface would be for the PF to be able to set a given VF into
> "trusted" mode... I admit exactly what 'trusted' meant would vary from
> vender to vender, but it would be a way for the driver to know it could allow
> configurations such as this. Just an idea, since we seem to be getting more
> requests for things such as this.
> That's an even worse idea; now you have a generic interface with completely
> undefined semantics.
> The right way to do this, imho, is to use one of the standard interfaces for
> driver-specific gubbins - e.g. sysfs, genetlink or even (whisper it) ioctls - and
> put your 'VF promisc mode' setting there. That way you have a vendor-
> specific interface with vendor-specified semantics.
> Of those options, I'd recommend sysfs as the best fit.
> The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for
> the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error, please
> notify the sender immediately and delete the message. Unless you are an
> addressee (or authorized to receive for an addressee), you may not use,
> copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this
> message. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this
> message is strictly prohibited.
I do see your point, but I thought custom sysfs interfaces (not to even mention new ioctl's :) were frowned upon? Which is why I didn't even consider sysfs as an option.