From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Zhao, Yu" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/13 v7] PCI: Linux kernel SR-IOV support Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:07:23 +0800 Message-ID: <4948A52B.7040403@intel.com> References: <20081121183605.GA7810@yzhao12-linux.sh.intel.com> <200812161523.55238.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> <49486602.5000108@gmail.com> <20081217060608.GA12618@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jike Song , Jesse Barnes , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "achiang@hp.com" , "bjorn.helgaas@hp.com" , "grundler@parisc-linux.org" , "mingo@elte.hu" , "matthew@wil.cx" , "randy.dunlap@oracle.com" , "rdreier@cisco.com" , "horms@verge.net.au" , "yinghai@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" To: Greg KH Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081217060608.GA12618@kroah.com> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:37:54AM +0800, Jike Song wrote: >> Jesse Barnes wrote: >>> Given a respin of 10-13 I think it's reasonable to merge this into 2.6.29, but >>> I'd be much happier about it if we got some driver code along with it, so as >>> not to have an unused interface sitting around for who knows how many >>> releases. Is that reasonable? Do you know if any of the corresponding PF/VF >>> driver bits are ready yet? >> Hi Jesse, >> >> Yu Zhao has posted a patch set with subject "SR-IOV driver example" >> at November 26, which illustrated the usage of SR-IOV API in Intel 82576 VF/PF >> drivers;-) > > Yes, but that driver was soundly rejected by the network driver > maintainers, so I wouldn't go around showing that as your primary > example of how to use this interface :) > > The point is valid, I don't think these apis should go into the tree > without a driver or some other code using them. Otherwise they make no > sense at all to have in-tree. I agree the point is valid, but on another hand this is a 'the chicken & the egg' problem -- if we don't have the SR-IOV base, people who are developing PF drivers can not get their changes in-tree. Maybe they are holding the patches and waiting on the infrastructure... :-)