On 3/23/18 9:05 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> 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?
>
yes.
