> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan <[email protected]> On Behalf
> Of Calvin Owens
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 6:29 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Nguyen, Anthony L <[email protected]>; Kitszel,
> Przemyslaw <[email protected]>; Andrew Lunn
> <[email protected]>; David S. Miller <[email protected]>; Eric
> Dumazet <[email protected]>; Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>; Paolo
> Abeni <[email protected]>; Jagielski, Jedrzej
> <[email protected]>; Vecera, Ivan <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net] i40e: Prevent unwanted
> interface name changes
>
> The same naming regression which was reported in ixgbe and fixed in
> commit e67a0bc3ed4f ("ixgbe: prevent from unwanted interface name
> changes") still exists in i40e.
>
> Fix i40e by setting the same flag, added in commit c5ec7f49b480
> ("devlink: let driver opt out of automatic phys_port_name
> generation").
>
> Fixes: 9e479d64dc58 ("i40e: Add initial devlink support")
> Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_devlink.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_devlink.c
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_devlink.c
> index cc4e9e2addb7..40f81e798151 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_devlink.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_devlink.c
> @@ -212,6 +212,7 @@ int i40e_devlink_create_port(struct i40e_pf *pf)
>
> attrs.flavour = DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_PHYSICAL;
> attrs.phys.port_number = pf->hw.pf_id;
> + attrs.no_phys_port_name = 1;
1 is acceptable, but kernel style prefers true for boolean fields.
Can you use 'true' instead?
> i40e_devlink_set_switch_id(pf, &attrs.switch_id);
> devlink_port_attrs_set(&pf->devlink_port, &attrs);
> err = devlink_port_register(devlink, &pf->devlink_port, pf-
> >hw.pf_id);
Thank you for the patch aligning i40e with ixgbe behavior to prevent unwanted
interface renaming. This is correct and minimal.
You're adding attrs.no_phys_port_name = 1; but there's no comment in the
function explaining why. While not strictly required, maintainers often expect
a short inline comment like:
/* Prevent automatic phys_port_name generation (see ixgbe fix) */
This will help future readers understand why this flag is set, what do you
think?
> --
> 2.47.2
