On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:34:52 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> 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?
If we follow the logic that dump should show the user relevant resources, no matter which sub-object they are attached to - having a dev specified should only filter the objects to match the dev, including resources which are on ports of that dev. IDK if there's a strong use case for allowing the user to set scope on CLI but also - I don't see why not? > >> 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). Could you confirm that you're agreeing that we should leave doit as is? I'm not 100% sure after reading this twice :)
