On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar
<sridhar.samudr...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2017 11:49 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> Hi Dave and all,
>> During and after the BoF on SRIOV switchdev mode, we came into a
>> consensus among the developers from four different HW vendors (CC
>> audience) that a correct thing to do would be to disallow any new
>> extensions to the legacy mode.
>> The idea is to put focus on the new mode and not add new UAPIs and
>> kernel code which was turned to be a wrong design which does not allow
>> for properly offloading a kernel switching SW model to e-switch HW.
>> We also had a good session the day after regarding alignment for the
>> representation model of the uplink (physical port) and PF/s.
>> The VF representor netdevs  exist for all drivers that support the new
>> mode but the representation for the uplink and PF wasn't the same for
>> all. The decision was to represent the uplink and PFs vports in the
>> same manner done for VFs, using rep netdevs. This alignment would
>> provide a more strict and clear view of the kernel model for e-switch
>> to users and upper layer control plane SW.
> I don't see any changes in the Mellanox/other drivers to move to this new
> model to enable the uplink and PF port representors, any updates?

Yeah, I am worked on that but didn't get to finalize the upstreaming
so far.  I have resumed
the work and plan uplink rep in mlx5 to replace the PF being uplink rep for 4.18

> It would be really nice to highlight the pros and cons of the old versus the
> new model.
> We are looking into adding switchdev support for our new 100Gb ice driver
> and could use some feedback on the direction we should be taking.

good news.

The uplink rep is clear cut that needs to be a rep device representing
the uplink just like vf
rep represents the vport toward the vf - please just do it correct
from the begining

I can spare

Reply via email to