Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/15][pull request] ice: support devlink subfunction

[Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 08:56:53AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 07:11:48AM CEST, michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 04:32:56PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 12:10:11AM CEST, anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com wrote:
> >> >Michal Swiatkowski says:
> >> >
> >> >Currently ice driver does not allow creating more than one networking
> >> >device per physical function. The only way to have more hardware backed
> >> >netdev is to use SR-IOV.
> >> >
> >> >Following patchset adds support for devlink port API. For each new
> >> >pcisf type port, driver allocates new VSI, configures all resources
> >> >needed, including dynamically MSIX vectors, program rules and registers
> >> >new netdev.
> >> >
> >> >This series supports only one Tx/Rx queue pair per subfunction.
> >> >
> >> >Example commands:
> >> >devlink port add pci/0000:31:00.1 flavour pcisf pfnum 1 sfnum 1000
> >> >devlink port function set pci/0000:31:00.1/1 hw_addr 00:00:00:00:03:14
> >> >devlink port function set pci/0000:31:00.1/1 state active
> >> >devlink port function del pci/0000:31:00.1/1
> >> >
> >> >Make the port representor and eswitch code generic to support
> >> >subfunction representor type.
> >> >
> >> >VSI configuration is slightly different between VF and SF. It needs to
> >> >be reflected in the code.
> >> >---
> >> >v2:
> >> >- Add more recipients
> >> >
> >> >v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240729223431.681842-1-anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com/
> >> 
> >> I'm confused a bit. This is certainly not v2. I replied to couple
> >> versions before. There is no changelog. Hard to track changes :/
> >
> >You can see all changes here:
> >https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240606112503.1939759-1-michal.swiatkowski@linux.intel.com/
> >
> >This is pull request from Tony, no changes between it and version from
> >iwl.
> 
> Why the changelog can't be here too? It's still the same patchset, isn't
> it?
> 

Correct it is the same patchset. I don't know, I though it is normal
that PR is starting from v1, feels like it was always like that.
Probably Tony is better person to ask about the process here.

> >