Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 04:03:40PM CET, d...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>On 3/23/18 9:01 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:31:02PM CET, d...@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>>> On 3/23/18 12:50 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>> +void nsim_devlink_setup(struct netdevsim *ns)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct net *net = dev_net(ns->netdev);
>>>>> + bool *reg_devlink = net_generic(net, nsim_devlink_id);
>>>>> + struct devlink *devlink;
>>>>> + int err = -ENOMEM;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* only one device per namespace controls devlink */
>>>>> + if (!*reg_devlink) {
>>>>> + ns->devlink = NULL;
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + devlink = devlink_alloc(&nsim_devlink_ops, 0);
>>>>> + if (!devlink)
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + devlink_net_set(devlink, net);
>>>>> + err = devlink_register(devlink, &ns->dev);
>>>>
>>>> This reg_devlink construct looks odd. Why don't you leave the devlink
>>>> instance in init_ns?
>>>
>>> It is a per-network namespace resource controller. Since struct devlink
>>
>> Wait a second. What do you mean by "per-network namespace"? Devlink
>> instance is always associated with one physical device. Like an ASIC.
>>
>>
>>> has a net entry, the simplest design is to put it into the namespace of
>>> the controller. Without it, controlling resource sizes in namespace
>>> 'foobar' has to be done from init_net, which is just wrong.
>
>you need to look at how netdevsim creates a device per netdevice.
That means one devlink instance for each netdevsim device, doesn't it?
