lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v2 0/7] Add devlink-health support for devlink ports
    Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 01:44:39AM CEST, kuba@kernel.org wrote:
    >On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 06:27:31 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
    >> Implement support for devlink health reporters on per-port basis. First
    >> part in the series prepares common functions parts for health reporter
    >> implementation. Second introduces required API to devlink-health and
    >> mlx5e ones demonstrate its usage and effectively implement the feature
    >> for mlx5 driver.
    >> The per-port reporter functionality is achieved by adding a list of
    >> devlink_health_reporters to devlink_port struct in a manner similar to
    >> existing device infrastructure. This is the only major difference and
    >> it makes possible to fully reuse device reporters operations.
    >> The effect will be seen in conjunction with iproute2 additions and
    >> will affect all devlink health commands. User can distinguish between
    >> device and port reporters by looking at a devlink handle. Port reporters
    >> have a port index at the end of the address and such addresses can be
    >> provided as a parameter in every place where devlink-health accepted it.
    >> These can be obtained from devlink port show command.
    >> For example:
    >> $ devlink health show
    >> pci/0000:00:0a.0:
    >> reporter fw
    >> state healthy error 0 recover 0 auto_dump true
    >> pci/0000:00:0a.0/1:
    >> reporter tx
    >> state healthy error 0 recover 0 grace_period 500 auto_recover true auto_dump true
    >> $ devlink health set pci/0000:00:0a.0/1 reporter tx grace_period 1000 \
    >> auto_recover false auto_dump false
    >> $ devlink health show pci/0000:00:0a.0/1 reporter tx
    >> pci/0000:00:0a.0/1:
    >> reporter tx
    >> state healthy error 0 recover 0 grace_period 1000 auto_recover flase auto_dump false
    >
    >What's the motivation, though?
    >
    >This patch series achieves nothing that couldn't be previously achieved.

    Well, not really. If you have 2 ports, you have 2 set's of tx/rx health
    reporters. Cannot achieve that w/o per-port health reporters.


    >
    >Is there no concern of uAPI breakage with moving the existing health
    >reporters in patch 7?

    No. This is bug by design that we are fixing now. No other way around :/
    This is mlx5 only.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-07-04 16:17    [W:3.219 / U:0.988 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site