lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: virtio_net: ethtool supported link modes
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:19:53PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 18:43 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:04:04PM +0100, Radu Rendec wrote:
> > > Looking at the code in virtnet_set_link_ksettings, it seems the speed
> > > and duplex can be set to any valid value. The driver will "remember"
> > > them and report them back in virtnet_get_link_ksettings.
> > >
> > > However, the supported link modes (link_modes.supported in struct
> > > ethtool_link_ksettings) is always 0, indicating that no speed/duplex
> > > setting is supported.
> > >
> > > Does it make more sense to set (at least a few of) the supported link
> > > modes, such as 10baseT_Half ... 10000baseT_Full?
> > >
> > > I would expect to see consistency between what is reported in
> > > link_modes.supported and what can actually be set. Could you please
> > > share your opinion on this?
> >
> > I would like to know more about why this is desirable.
> >
> > We used not to support the modes at all, but it turned out
> > some tools are confused by this: e.g. people would try to
> > bond virtio with a hardware device, tools would see
> > a mismatch in speed and features between bonded devices
> > and get confused.
> >
> > See
> >
> > commit 16032be56c1f66770da15cb94f0eb366c37aff6e
> > Author: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com>
> > Date:   Wed Feb 3 04:04:37 2016 +0100
> >
> >     virtio_net: add ethtool support for set and get of settings
> >
> >
> > as well as the discussion around it
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg362111.html
>
> Thanks for pointing these out. It is much more clear now why modes
> support is implemented the way it is and what the expectations are.
>
> > If you think we need to add more hacks like this, a stronger
> > motivation than "to see consistency" would be needed.
>
> The use case behind my original question is very simple:
> * Net device is queried via ethtool for supported modes.
> * Supported modes are presented to user.
> * User can configure any of the supported modes.

Since this has no effect on virtio, isn't presenting
"no supported modes" to user the right thing to do?

> This is done transparently to the net device type (driver), so it
> actually makes sense for physical NICs.
>
> This alone of course is not a good enough motivation to modify the
> driver. And it can be easily addressed in user-space at the application
> level by testing for the driver.

I think you might want to special-case no supported modes.
Special-casing virtio is probably best avoided.

> I was merely trying to avoid driver-specific workarounds (i.e. keep the
> application driver agnostic)

I think that's the right approach. So if driver does not present
any supported modes this probably means it is not necessary
to display or program any.

> and wondered if "advertising" supported
> modes through ethtool made any sense and/or would be a desirable change
> from the driver perspective. I believe I have my answers now.
>
> Thanks,
> Radu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-01 19:45    [W:0.051 / U:34.320 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site