On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 12:46:57AM -0800, John Fastabend wrote: > On 2/1/2012 11:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:30:24AM -0800, Roopa Prabhu wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 11/17/11 4:15 PM, "Ben Hutchings" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry to come to this rather late. > >>> > >>> On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 23:55 -0800, Roopa Prabhu wrote: > >>> [...] > >>>> v2 -> v3 > >>>> - Moved set and get filter ops from rtnl_link_ops to netdev_ops > >>>> - Support for SRIOV VFs. > >>>> [Note: The get filters msg (in the way current get rtnetlink > >>>> handles > >>>> it) might get too big for SRIOV vfs. This patch follows existing > >>>> sriov > >>>> vf get code and tries to accomodate filters for all VF's in a PF. > >>>> And for the SRIOV case I have only tested the fact that the VF > >>>> arguments are getting delivered to rtnetlink correctly. The code > >>>> follows existing sriov vf handling code so rest of it should work > >>>> fine] > >>> [...] > >>> > >>> This is already broken for large numbers of VFs, and increasing the > >>> amount of information per VF is going to make the situation worse. I am > >>> no netlink expert but I think that the current approach of bundling all > >>> information about an interface in a single message may not be > >>> sustainable. > >> > >> Yes agreed. I have the same concern. > > > > So it seems that we need to extend the existing interface to allow > > tweaking filters per VF. Does it need to block this > > patchset though? After all, we'll need to support the existing > > hmm not sure I follow what patchset is this blocking?
The one you are replying to. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
