Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] docs: net: add an explanation of VF (and other) Representors

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 09:17:20 -0700

On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:58:54 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > Sure, but as an application of that, people talk about e.g. "host"
> >  and "device" ends of a bus, DMA transfer, etc.  As a result of which
> >  "host" has come to mean "computer; server; the big rack-mounted box
> >  you plug cards into".
> > A connotation which is unfortunate once a single device can live on
> >  two separate PCIe hierarchies, connected to two computers each with
> >  its own hostname, and the one which owns the device is the cluster
> >  of embedded CPUs inside the card, rather than the big metal box.  
> 
> I agree that "host" isn't going to work as a multi-host capable device
> might end up having only one "host" that can actually handle the
> configuration of the switch for the entire device. So then you have
> different types of "host" interfaces.

Thank $deity I haven't had to think about multi-host NPU/DPU/IPUs
for a couple of years now, but I think trying to elect a leader in
charge across the hosts is not a good idea there. Much easier to proxy
all configuration thru FW, as much as I hate that (since FW is usually
closed).

That said choosing the term is about intuition not proofs so "host"
won't fly.