On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 09:48:30AM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > On 5/6/20 11:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 05:41:38PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > >> currently pci_iov_add_virtfn() scans the SR-IOV bars, adds the VF to the > >> bus and also creates the sysfs links between the newly added VF and its > >> parent PF. > > > > s/currently/Currently/ > > s/bars/BARs/ > > > >> With pdev->no_vf_scan fencing off the entire pci_iov_add_virtfn() call > >> s390 as the sole pdev->no_vf_scan user thus ends up missing these sysfs > >> links which are required for example by QEMU/libvirt. > >> Instead of duplicating the code introduce a new pci_iov_sysfs_link() > >> function for establishing sysfs links. > > > > This looks like two paragraphs missing the blank line between. > > > > This whole thing is not "introducing" any new functionality; it's > > "refactoring" to move existing functionality around and make it > > callable separately. > You're right I'll keep it in the subject for easier reference > if that's okay with you. > > > >> Signed-off-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > With the fixes above and a few below: > > > > Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thank you for the very quick and useful feedback. > I've incorporated the changes and will resend with the PATCH prefix. > If/when accepted what tree should the first patch go to? I'd expect them both to go via the s390 tree so there's no dependency between the PCI merge and the s390 merge. > And yes I plan to let the second patch go via the s390 tree.
