Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous control
From: Jeff Kirsher
Date: Mon Feb 23 2015 - 16:14:27 EST
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 06:29 -0800, Skidmore, Donald C wrote:
> > -----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.
We discussed this during NetConf last week, and Don is correct that a
custom sysfs interface is not the way we want to handle this. We agreed
upon a generic interface so that any NIC is able to turn on or off VF
multicast promiscuous mode.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part