On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:51 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:37:28AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:17 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 03:34:01PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:09 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > <...> > > > > > representors rather than being actual PCIe devices. Having > > > > functionality that only works when the VF driver is not loaded just > > > > feels off. The VF sysfs directory feels like it is being used as a > > > > subdirectory of the PF rather than being a device on its own. > > > > > > Moving "virtfnX_msix_count" to the PF seems like it would mitigate > > > this somewhat. I don't know how to make this work while a VF driver > > > is bound without making the VF feel even less like a PCIe device, > > > i.e., we won't be able to use the standard MSI-X model. > > > > Yeah, I actually do kind of like that idea. In addition it would > > address one of the things I pointed out as an issue before as you > > could place the virtfn values that the total value in the same folder > > so that it is all in one central spot rather than having to walk all > > over the sysfs hierarchy to check the setting for each VF when trying > > to figure out how the vectors are currently distributed. > > User binds specific VF with specific PCI ID to VM, so instead of > changing MSI-X table for that specific VF, he will need to translate > from virtfn25_msix_count to PCI ID. Wouldn't that just be a matter of changing the naming so that the PCI ID was present in the virtfn name? > I also gave an example of my system where I have many PFs and VFs > function numbers are not distributed nicely. On that system virtfn25_msix_count > won't translate to AA:BB:CC.25 but to something else. That isn't too surprising since normally we only support 7 functions per device. I am okay with not using the name virtfnX. If you wanted to embed the bus, device, func in the naming scheme that would work for me too. Really in general as a naming scheme just using a logical number have probably never provided all that much value. There may be an argument to be made for renaming the virtfn symlinks to include bus, device, function instead.
