Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 00/12] devlink: introduce port flavours and common phys_port_name generation

From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:02:34 -0700

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:55:10 +0100
Jiri Pirko <[email-masked]> wrote:

> From: Jiri Pirko <[email-masked]>
> 
> This patchset resolves 2 issues we have right now:
> 1) There are many netdevices / ports in the system, for port, pf, vf
>    represenatation but the user has no way to see which is which

There already are a lot of attributes, adding more doesn't necessarily
help make things clearer.

> 2) The ndo_get_phys_port_name is implemented in each driver separatelly,
>    which may lead to inconsistent names between drivers.

Why not address that problem. My concern is that your new attribute
will have the same problem.

Also adding pf and vfNNN on the name will make the already tightly squeezed
interface name length a real problem. I have had arguments with people
trying use VLAN 4000 and standard naming policy.  Which means you really
can't go that long.