On 4/5/18 11:52 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:06:41PM CEST, d...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>> On 4/5/18 2:10 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> The ASIC here is the kernel tables in a namespace. It does not make
>>> sense to have 2 devlink instances for a single namespace.
>> I put this example controller in netdevsim per a suggestion from Ido.
>> The netdevsim seemed like a good idea given that modules intention --
>> testing network facilities. Perhaps I should have done this as a
>> completely standalone module ...
>> The intention is to treat the kernel's tables *per namespace* as a
>> standalone entity that can be managed very similar to ASIC resources.
> So you say you want to treat a namespace as an ASIC? That sounds very
> odd to me :/

Why? The kernel has forwarding tables, acl's, etc just like the ASIC,
and each namespace is a separate set of tables.

If you think about it, userspace "programs" the kernel just like mlxsw
and userspace SDKs "program" an asic.

>> Given that I can add a resource controller module
>> (drivers/net/kern_res_mgr.c?) that creates a 'struct device' per network
>> namespace with a devlink instance. In this case the device would very
>> much be tied to the namespace 1:1.
> That sounds more reasonable and accurate, yet still odd. You would not
> have any netdevices there? Any ports?

Sure, what ever ports are assigned to or created in the namespace.

Nothing about the devlink API says it has to be a real h/w device.
Nothing about the devlink API says it can only be used for real h/w that
has ports represented by netdevices that the devlink instance some how
has "control" over.

As the netdevsim demo shows, I can build an L3 resource controller for
the kernel tables using just the devlink API and the in-kernel notifiers.

Reply via email to