On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:12:00 -0400 (EDT) David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:03:19 +0100 > > > On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 14:14 +1000, David Gibson wrote: > >> I believe I've found a problem with netlink handling which can be > >> triggered on Cisco enic devices with a large number (30-40) of virtual > >> functions. I believe this is the cause of a real customer problem > >> we've seen. > >> > >> * When requesting a list of interfaces with RTM_GETLINK, enic devices > >> (and currently, _only_ enic devices) report IFLA_VF_PORTS > >> information > >> > >> * IFLA_VF_PORTS information has at least 90 bytes ber virtual function > >> > >> * Unlike IFLA_VFINFO_LIST, the ports information is always reported, > >> regardless of the setting of the IFLA_EXT_MASK parameter > > [...] > > > > So I think you should make reporting of IFLA_VF_PORTS dependent on the > > same flag as IFLA_VFINFO_LIST. > > I think that's what we'll have to do. Ok, makes logical sense. But does anyone know what tools make use of the IFLA_VF_PORTS information? Do they set the IFLA_EXT_MASK already? -- David Gibson <dgibson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
pgptQYre3K3xT.pgp
Description: PGP signature