On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 02:45:14PM +0100, Sebastian Ott wrote: > Hello Bjorn, > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 02:55:07PM +0200, Sebastian Ott wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 02:34:09PM +0200, Sebastian Ott wrote: > > > > > On s390 we currently handle SRIOV within firmware. Which means > > > > > that the PF is under firmware control and not visible to operating > > > > > systems. SRIOV enablement happens within firmware and VFs are > > > > > passed through to logical partitions. > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on a new mode were the PF is under operating system > > > > > control (including SRIOV enablement). However we still need > > > > > firmware support to access the VFs. The way this is supposed > > > > > to work is that when firmware traps the SRIOV enablement it > > > > > will present machine checks to the logical partition that > > > > > triggered the SRIOV enablement and provide the VFs via hotplug > > > > > events. > > > > > > > > > > The problem I'm faced with is that the VF detection code in > > > > > sriov_enable leads to unusable functions in s390. > > > > > > > > We're moving away from the weak function implementation style. Can > > > > you take a look at Arnd's work here, which uses pci_host_bridge > > > > callbacks instead? > > > > > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180817102645.3839621-1-arnd@xxxxxxxx > > > > > > What's the status of Arnd's patches - will they go upstream in the next > > > couple of versions? > > > > I hope so [1]. IIRC Arnd mentioned doing some minor updates, so I'm > > waiting on that. > > > > > What about my patches that I rebased on Arnd's branch > > > will they be considered? > > > > Definitely. From my point of view they're just lined up behind Arnd's > > patches. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20181002205903.GD120535@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > It appears like these patches are not in-line for the next merge window. > Would it be possible to go with my original patches (using __weak > functions)? (This would also make life easier with regards to backports) > I can post patches to convert this to use function pointers once Arnd's > patches make it to the kernel. Yeah, sorry, I think we should just go with your original approach. Can you repost those patches with minor changelog updates so "git log --online" on the files looks consistent. Also, capitalize "PCI", "VF", etc, consistently when used in English text. Bjorn
