On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:13 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 06:01:13PM -0800, Ajit Khaparde wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:59 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > ::: snip ::: > > > > > > > > > So we are trying to call the > > > > bnxt_re_sriov_config in the context of handling the PF's > > > > sriov_configure implementation. Having the ulp_ops is allowing us to > > > > avoid resource wastage and assumptions in the bnxt_re driver. > > > > > > To which resource wastage are you referring? > > Essentially the PF driver reserves a set of above resources for the PF, > > and divides the remaining resources among the VFs. > > If the calculation is based on sriov_totalvfs instead of sriov_numvfs, > > there can be a difference in the resources provisioned for a VF. > > And that is because a user may create a subset of VFs instead of the > > total VFs allowed in the PCI SR-IOV capability register. > > I was referring to the resource wastage in that deployment scenario. > > It is ok, set all needed limits in bnxt_en. You don't need to call to > bnxt_re for that. Thanks. We have removed the sriov_config callback. I will send the fresh patchset in a few minutes. > > > > > Thanks > > Ajit > > > > > > > > There are no differences if same limits will be in bnxt_en driver when > > > RDMA bnxt device is created or in bnxt_re which will be called once RDMA > > > device is created. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > ::snip:: > > > > > > > >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
