On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 08:35:06PM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 08:16:04PM +0100, Matias Bjørling wrote: > > > On 02/25/2017 07:21 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > No way in hell. vs is vendor specific and we absolutely can't overload > > > > it with any sort of meaning. Get OCSSD support properly standardized and > > > > add a class code for it. Until then it's individual PCI IDs. > > > > > > > > > > You are right, that is the right way to go, and we are working on it. In the > > > meantime, there are a couple of reasons I want to do a pragmatic solution: > > > > Reasonable reaosons, but that's just not how standard interfaces work. > > Either you standardize the behaviour and have a standardized trigger > > for it, or it is vendor specific and needs to be keyed off a specific > > vendor/device identification. > > I agree, I don't see how we're allowed to use vs for that. >From personal experience, some OEMs will put whatever they want in the VS region for their rebranded device, making it an unreliable place to check for a capability.
