On 8/2/19 1:48 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:58:10PM CEST, dsah...@gmail.com wrote: >> On 7/31/19 1:46 PM, David Ahern wrote: >>> On 7/31/19 1:45 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>>>> check. e.g., what happens if a resource controller has been configured >>>>> for the devlink instance and it is moved to a namespace whose existing >>>>> config exceeds those limits? >>>> >>>> It's moved with all the values. The whole instance is moved. >>>> >>> >>> The values are moved, but the FIB in a namespace could already contain >>> more routes than the devlink instance allows. >>> >> >>From a quick test your recent refactoring to netdevsim broke the >> resource controller. It was, and is intended to be, per network namespace. > > unifying devlink instances with network namespace in netdevsim was > really odd. Netdevsim is also a device, like any other. With other > devices, you do not do this so I don't see why to do this with netdevsim. > > Now you create netdevsim instance in sysfs, there is proper bus probe > mechanism done, there is a devlink instance created for this device, > there are netdevices and devlink ports created. Same as for the real > hardware. > > Honestly, creating a devlink instance per-network namespace > automagically, no relation to netdevsim devices, that is simply wrong. > There should be always 1:1 relationshin between a device and devlink > instance. >
Jiri: prior to your recent change netdevsim had a fib resource controller per network namespace. Please return that behavior or revert the change.