> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 6:55 AM > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 13:51:17 +0200 > Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 26/02/2025 10:06, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > >> From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 8:19 PM > > >> > > >> config VIRTIO_VFIO_PCI > > >> - tristate "VFIO support for VIRTIO NET PCI VF devices" > > >> + tristate "VFIO support for VIRTIO NET,BLOCK PCI VF devices" > > >> depends on VIRTIO_PCI > > >> select VFIO_PCI_CORE > > >> help > > >> - This provides migration support for VIRTIO NET PCI VF devices > > >> - using the VFIO framework. Migration support requires the > > >> + This provides migration support for VIRTIO NET,BLOCK PCI VF > > >> + devices using the VFIO framework. Migration support requires the > > >> SR-IOV PF device to support specific VIRTIO extensions, > > >> otherwise this driver provides no additional functionality > > >> beyond vfio-pci. > > > > > > Probably just describe it as "VFIO support for VIRTIO PCI VF devices"? > > > Anyway one needs to check out the specific id table in the driver for > > > which devices are supported. and the config option is called as > > > VIRTIO_VFIO_PCI > > > > I'm OK with that as well, both can work. > > > > Alex, > > Any preference here ? > > What's actually the proposal? It's fine with me if we want to make the > tristate summary more generic, but I'd keep the mention of the specific > devices in the help text. I don't know many users that preemptively > look at the id table. > I proposed to remove specific devices from both the summary and the description. Fine to do it only for the summary.
