Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 10:51:26PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: >On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 20:24:08 +0200 Or Har-Toov wrote: >> For the dump-it command: >> devlink resource show >> pci/0000:03:00.0: >> <resource> >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196608: >> <port-resource> >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196609: >> <port-resource> >> pci/0000:03:00.1: >> <resource> >> pci/0000:03:00.1/262144: >> <port-resource> >> >> devlink resource show scope port >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196608: >> <port-resource> >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196609: >> <port-resource> >> pci/0000:03:00.1/262144: >> <port-resource> >> >> devlink resource show scope dev >> pci/0000:03:00.0: >> <resource> >> pci/0000:03:00.1: >> <resource> > >LGTM
I don't see the benefit of exposing the scope to the user to be honest. I mean, dump would show all, dump with "dev" handle would be used as a selector to dump only things related to "dev". What is the use case of this "scope" granularity? > >> For the do-it command: >> devlink resource show pci/0000:03:00.0 >> pci/0000:03:00.0: >> <resource> >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196608: >> <port-resource> >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196609: >> <port-resource> >> >> devlink resource show pci/0000:03:00.0 scope port >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196608: >> <port-resource> >> pci/0000:03:00.0/196609: >> <port-resource> >> >> devlink resource show pci/0000:03:00.0 scope dev >> pci/0000:03:00.0: >> <resource> > >Do we have to touch doit? Maybe we should let doit be what it is now >and consider it legacy going forward? doit which is in fact a filtered >dump is a bit of a mistake in the first place, from Netlink's >perspective. I don't think we should. If user wants doit, he is going to specify the object (dev/port). If user is interested only in things related to single device, he should do dump with selector (dev). Let's make this simple.
