From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@wp.pl>
Subject: Re: [RFC] hv_netvsc: automatically name slave VF network device
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:24:52 -0800
Message-ID: <20171219142452.0f708189@cakuba.netronome.com>
References: <20171219193537.22587-1-sthemmin@microsoft.com>
        <20171219123234.683f9b8d@cakuba.netronome.com>
        <20171219124425.56033614@xeon-e3>
        <20171219131816.70645a7b@cakuba.netronome.com>
        <20171219132949.57926170@xeon-e3>
        <20171219135529.62800475@cakuba.netronome.com>
        <20171219140659.39f6cc1c@xeon-e3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx4.wp.pl ([212.77.101.11]:17151 "EHLO mx4.wp.pl"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750859AbdLSWZA (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:25:00 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20171219140659.39f6cc1c@xeon-e3>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:06:59 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > > I assume you mean the modern application is udev, and it works
> > > > > but the name is meaningless because it based of synthetic PCI
> > > > > information. The PCI host adapter is simulated for pass through
> > > > > devices. Names like enp12s0.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since every passthrough VF device on Hyper-V/Azure has a matching
> > > > > synthetic network device with same mac address. It is best to
> > > > > have the relationship shown in the name.        
> > > > 
> > > > How about we make the VF drivers expose "vf" as phys_port_name?
> > > > Then systemd/udev should glue that onto the name regardless of
> > > > how the VF is used.      
> > > 
> > > One of the goals was not to modify in any way other drivers (like VF).    
> > 
> > Why?  Do you have out-of-tree drivers you can't change or some such?  
> 
> This needs to work on enterprise distributions; plus it is not good
> practice to introduce random changes into partners like Mellanox
> drivers.

Are we talking about Linux or Windows kernel here?  I don't think
this requires hypervisor changes?  The notion of a "partner" and
changing drivers by people who are not employed by a vendor being 
bad practice sounds entirely foreign to me.

If we agree that marking VF interfaces is useful (and I think 
it is) then we should mark them always, not only when they are 
enslaved to a magic bond.  And the natural way of doing that 
seems to be phys_port_name.