Re: [PATCH 3/8] PCI: sysfs per device SRIOV control and status

[Don Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>]

On 10/31/2012 01:36 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 17:01 +0000, Rose, Gregory V wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Don Dutile [mailto:ddutile@redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:07 AM
>>> To: Ben Hutchings
>>> Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org; bhelgaas@google.com; yuvalmin@broadcom.com;
>>> Rose, Gregory V; yinghai@kernel.org; davem@davemloft.net
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] PCI: sysfs per device SRIOV control and status
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Ok, my turn:
>>> Any feedback on having the sysfs configure call
>>> pci_sriov_[enable/disable](), as well as do the don't-disable if VFs are
>>> assigned to guests?
>>>
>>
>> Don,
>>
>> As I've mentioned before I still prefer to have the sysfs interface
>> you've written up make the calls to pci_sriov_enable/disable()
>
> I think that would work for sfc, assuming the driver function is to be
> called before either of those.  I don't know whether it would work for
> any of the other drivers with SR-IOV back-ends, though.
>
>> and have the checking for whether the VFs are assigned to guests done
>> there also,
>
> I agree that this is should be centralised, though I think that could be
> done as a later step without too much pain.
>
>> but really it isn't anything worth going to the mats about.  As it
>> stands I think if you address the issues brought up by Ben then I'm
>> fine with what you've worked up so far.  Since no one else seems to
>> have an opinion about it (as demonstrated by a lack of response over
>> the last 5 days) then I'd suggest we go forward with the current
>> implementation.  I'd really like to see this in 3.8 if possible.
>>
>> Thanks for all your work.
>
> Agreed, thanks Don.
>
> Ben.
>
Greg & Ben,
Thanks for your feedback on the core doing the sriov_enable/disable.
I agree that let's get existing the core stuff into 3.8 & do the enable/disable as a follow up.
I'm just polishing the patch set now based on Ben's feedback....
I was delayed when my test machine was (improperly) taken from me (bad IT, bad! :-( ).
Just got the machine back today to test the various (error) cases,
and make checkpatch.pl happy.  I expect to post a PATCH (non-RFC) later today.
- Don
ps -- of course, if Greg wants to give me a set of igb patches like the ones he did
       for ixgbe, it'd get me out of the test machine battles -- I have private
       test machine w/igb's. :)  hint, hint...ok, more like 'beg, beg' ... again... ;)