On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:45:42PM -0800, Michael Dalton wrote: > I'd like to confirm the preferred sysfs path structure for mergeable > receive buffers. Is 'mergeable_rx_buffer_size' the right attribute name > to use or is there a strong preference for a different name? > > I believe the current approach proposed for the next patchset is to use a > per-netdev attribute group which we will add to the receive > queue kobj (struct netdev_rx_queue). That leaves us with at > least two options: > (1) Name the attribute group something, e.g., 'virtio-net', in which > case all virtio-net attributes for eth0 queue N will be of > the form: > /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-N/virtio-net/<attribute name> > > (2) Do not name the attribute group (leave the name NULL), in which > case AFAICT virtio-net and device-independent attributes would be > mixed without any indication. For example, all virtio-net > attributes for netdev eth0 queue N would be of the form: > /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-N/<attribute name> > > FWIW, the bonding netdev has a similar sysfs issue and uses a per-netdev > attribute group (stored in the 'sysfs_groups' field of struct netdevice) > In the case of bonding, the attribute group is named, so > device-independent netdev attributes are found in > /sys/class/net/eth0/<attribute name> while bonding attributes are placed > in /sys/class/net/eth0/bonding/<attribute name>. > > So it seems like there is some precedent for using an attribute group > name corresponding to the driver name. Does using an attribute group > name of 'virtio-net' sound good or would an empty or different attribute > group name be preferred? > > Best, > > Mike
I'm guessing we should follow the bonding example. What do others think? _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
