On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:10:41PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 01:09:06PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 10:55:24AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 11:55 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > @Alexander Duyck, please update me if I can add your ROB tag again > > > > to the series, because you liked v6 more. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Changelog > > > > v7: > > > > * Rebase on top v5.12-rc1 > > > > * More english fixes > > > > * Returned to static sysfs creation model as was implemented in v0/v1. > > <...> > > > 2) Should a VF sysfs file use the PF to implement this? > > > > Can you elaborate on your idea here? I guess > > pci_iov_sysfs_link() makes a "virtfnX" link from the PF to the > > VF, and you're thinking we could also make a "virtfnX_msix_count" > > in the PF directory? That's a really interesting idea. > > I want to remind that we are talking about mlx5 devices that support > upto 255 VFs and they indeed are used to their limits. So seeing 255 > links of virtfnX_msix_count in the same directory looks too much unpleasant > to me. 255 files are nothing, if that's what the hardware supports, what is the problem? If it's "unpleasant", go complain to the hardware designers :) greg k-h
