On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:54:37 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:22:31AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >> Some user space depends on driver allowing sriov_totalvfs to be
> >> enabled.
> >
> > I can't make sene of this sentence. Can you explain what user space
> > code depends on what semantics? The sriov_totalvfs file should show
> > up for any device supporting SR-IOV as far as I can tell.
> >
> >>
> >> For devices which VF support depends on loaded FW we
> >> have the pci_sriov_{g,s}et_totalvfs() API. However, this API
> >> uses 0 as a special "unset" value, meaning drivers can't limit
> >> sriov_totalvfs to 0. Change the special value to be U16_MAX.
> >> Use simple min() to determine actual totalvfs.
> >
> > Please use a PCI_MAX_VFS or similar define instead of plain U16_MAX or ~0.
>
> Actually is there any reason why driver_max_VFs couldn't just be
> initialized to the same value as total_VFs?
>
> Also looking over the patch I don't see how writing ~0 would be
> accepted unless you also make changes to pci_sriov_set_totalvfs since
> it should fail the "numvfs > dev->sriov->total_VFs" check. You might
> just want to look at adding a new function that would reset the
> driver_max_VFs value instead of trying to write it to an arbitrary
> value from the driver.
Ack, the reset function plus using total_VFs as unset seems a lot
cleaner, thanks!
