Re: [PATCH net-next V7 02/14] devlink: introduce shared devlink instance for PFs on same chip
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-02-05 02:06:38
Also in:
linux-doc, linux-rdma, lkml
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-02-05 02:06:38
Also in:
linux-doc, linux-rdma, lkml
On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 08:15:21 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
quoted
quoted
String gives drivers flexibility to use anything. Perhaps I'm missing your point. Are you againts free-form or just string and buf+buf_len would be fine?I was thinking binary buf+len is fine, and we shouldn't really expose this to user space in any shape or form (hence no concern about free form).How you imagine to name faux device then? I'm sensing that you want to get rid of busname/devname handle for things like this and rely on some randomly generated index. But the whole ecosystem is bases on busname/devname handle. Any idea how to overcome that?
Quoting myself form the other sub-thread: FWIW using devlink day to day, the bus/device is not at all useful as an identifier. Most of code touching devlink at Meta either matches on devlink dev info or assumes there's one instance on the system. IOW I think you over-estimate the value of the bus/dev in real life systems. And that's for instances that have a real bus/dev. Having a faux bus/dev is completely pointless, right? The only question is whether some code will straight up crash when seeing a device without bus/dev.