On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 15:29:53 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> 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? > > At least some small sense of consistency with other dumps? Health > reporter and region does not have scope and output mixture of dev-based > and port-based objects. Why to confuse user?
That's a judgment call - either we confuse users but two commands behaving differently, or we confuse users with devlink $thing not dumping all instances of the $thing. Especially that drivers often retroactively move $things from device scope to port scope :(
