On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 03:21:23PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:45 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [..]
> > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(auxiliary, mlx5v_id_table);
> > > +
> > > +static struct auxiliary_driver mlx5v_driver = {
> > > + .name = "vnet",
> > > + .probe = mlx5v_probe,
> > > + .remove = mlx5v_remove,
> > > + .id_table = mlx5v_id_table,
> > > +};
> >
> > It is hard to see from the diff, but when this patch is applied the
> > vdpa module looks like I imagined things would look with the auxiliary
> > bus. It is very similar in structure to a PCI driver with the probe()
> > function cleanly registering with its subsystem. This is what I'd like
> > to see from the new Intel RDMA driver.
> >
> > Greg, I think this patch is the best clean usage example.
> >
> > I've looked over this series and it has the right idea and
> > parts. There is definitely more that can be done to improve mlx5 in
> > this area, but this series is well scoped and cleans a good part of
> > it.
>
> Greg?
>
> I know you alluded to going your own way if the auxiliary bus patches
> did not shape up soon, but it seems they have and the stakeholders
> have reached this consensus point.
>
> Were there any additional changes you wanted to see happen? I'll go
> give the final set another once over, but David has been diligently
> fixing up all the declared major issues so I expect to find at most
> minor incremental fixups.
This is in my to-review pile, along with a load of other stuff at the
moment:
$ ~/bin/mdfrm -c ~/mail/todo/
1709 messages in /home/gregkh/mail/todo/
So give me a chance. There is no rush on my side for this given the
huge delays that have happened here on the authorship side many times in
the past :)
If you can review it, or anyone else, that is always most appreciated.
thanks,
greg k-h
