On 2/20/2023 5:11 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 04:45:51PM -0800, Brett Creeley wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:39:01AM -0800, Brett Creeley wrote:
This is a draft patchset for a new vendor specific VFIO driver
(pds_vfio) for use with the AMD/Pensando Distributed Services Card
(DSC). This driver is device type agnostic and live migration is
supported as long as the underlying SR-IOV VF supports live migration
on the DSC. This driver is a client of the newly introduced pds_core
driver, which the latest version can be referenced at:
Just as a broken clock: non-standard nvme live migration is not
acceptable. Please work with the NVMe technical workning group to
get this feature standardized. Note that despite various interested
parties on linux lists I've seen exactly zero activity from the
(not so) smart nic vendors active there.
You're right, we intend to work with the respective groups, and we removed
any mention of NVMe from the series. However, this solution applies to our
other PCI devices.
The first posting had a PCI ID that was literally only for NVMe and
now suddenly this very same driver supports "other devices" with nary
a mention of what those devices are? It strains credibility.
List the exact IDs of these other devices in your PCI ID table and
don't try to get away with a PCI_ANY_ID that just happens to match the
NVMe device ID too.
Okay, we'll look at revising/updating our VF device ID scheme for a
specific VF and add that entry in the PCI ID table.
Keeping in mind that PCI IDs of the VF are not supposed to differ from
the PF so this looks like a spec violation to me too :\
You have to remove the aux bus stuff also if you want this taken
seriously. Either aux for all or aux for none, I don't want drivers
Can you please expand on the "aux for all or aux for none" comment? It's
not clear what you mean here.
making up their own stuff here. Especially since this implementation
is wrongly locked and racy.
Can you please provide more details on what's wrongly locked and racy?
Thanks for the review.
Brett
Jason
