Re: [PATCH 0/2] sriov enablement on s390

[Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>]

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@arndb.de
> > > 
> > > 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@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com
> 
> 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