> -----Original Message----- > From: Don Dutile [mailto:ddutile@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:19 AM > To: Ben Hutchings > Cc: Rose, Gregory V; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; > yuvalmin@xxxxxxxxxxxx; yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] PCI: sysfs per device SRIOV control and status > > On 10/31/2012 01:36 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 17:01 +0000, Rose, Gregory V wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Don Dutile [mailto:ddutile@xxxxxxxxxx] > >>> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:07 AM > >>> To: Ben Hutchings > >>> Cc: linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; > >>> yuvalmin@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Rose, Gregory V; yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx; > >>> davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] PCI: sysfs per device SRIOV control and > >>> status > >>> > >> > >>> > >>> Ok, my turn: > >>> Any feedback on having the sysfs configure call > >>> pci_sriov_[enable/disable](), as well as do the don't-disable if VFs > >>> are assigned to guests? > >>> > >> > >> Don, > >> > >> As I've mentioned before I still prefer to have the sysfs interface > >> you've written up make the calls to pci_sriov_enable/disable() > > > > I think that would work for sfc, assuming the driver function is to be > > called before either of those. I don't know whether it would work for > > any of the other drivers with SR-IOV back-ends, though. > > > >> and have the checking for whether the VFs are assigned to guests done > >> there also, > > > > I agree that this is should be centralised, though I think that could > > be done as a later step without too much pain. > > > >> but really it isn't anything worth going to the mats about. As it > >> stands I think if you address the issues brought up by Ben then I'm > >> fine with what you've worked up so far. Since no one else seems to > >> have an opinion about it (as demonstrated by a lack of response over > >> the last 5 days) then I'd suggest we go forward with the current > >> implementation. I'd really like to see this in 3.8 if possible. > >> > >> Thanks for all your work. > > > > Agreed, thanks Don. > > > > Ben. > > > Greg & Ben, > Thanks for your feedback on the core doing the sriov_enable/disable. > I agree that let's get existing the core stuff into 3.8 & do the > enable/disable as a follow up. > I'm just polishing the patch set now based on Ben's feedback.... > I was delayed when my test machine was (improperly) taken from me (bad IT, > bad! :-( ). > Just got the machine back today to test the various (error) cases, and > make checkpatch.pl happy. I expect to post a PATCH (non-RFC) later today. > - Don > ps -- of course, if Greg wants to give me a set of igb patches like the > ones he did > for ixgbe, it'd get me out of the test machine battles -- I have > private > test machine w/igb's. :) hint, hint...ok, more like 'beg, beg' ... > again... ;) I'll see what I can do. :) - Greg ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���"�)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
