On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 03:07:23PM +0800, Zhao, Yu wrote: > Greg KH wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:37:54AM +0800, Jike Song wrote: >>> Jesse Barnes wrote: >>>> Given a respin of 10-13 I think it's reasonable to merge this into >>>> 2.6.29, but I'd be much happier about it if we got some driver code >>>> along with it, so as not to have an unused interface sitting around for >>>> who knows how many releases. Is that reasonable? Do you know if any of >>>> the corresponding PF/VF driver bits are ready yet? >>> Hi Jesse, >>> Yu Zhao has posted a patch set with subject "SR-IOV driver example" at >>> November 26, which illustrated the usage of SR-IOV API in Intel 82576 >>> VF/PF >>> drivers;-) >> Yes, but that driver was soundly rejected by the network driver >> maintainers, so I wouldn't go around showing that as your primary >> example of how to use this interface :) >> The point is valid, I don't think these apis should go into the tree >> without a driver or some other code using them. Otherwise they make no >> sense at all to have in-tree. > > I agree the point is valid, but on another hand this is a 'the chicken & > the egg' problem -- if we don't have the SR-IOV base, people who are > developing PF drivers can not get their changes in-tree. Maybe they are > holding the patches and waiting on the infrastructure... :-) Are they? They can both go in at the same time, like almost every other api addition to the kernel, right? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
