From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.141]:44005 "EHLO e23smtp08.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756365AbbBJCOR (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:14:17 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp08.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:14:14 +1000 Received: from d23relay09.au.ibm.com (d23relay09.au.ibm.com [9.185.63.181]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BDFE2CE8050 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:14:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay09.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t1A2E4HK35848416 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:14:12 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t1A2DcdZ014324 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:13:38 +1100 Message-ID: <1423534394.4924.78.camel@au1.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 02/17] PCI/IOV: add VF enable/disable hook From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Wei Yang Cc: bhelgaas@google.com, gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:13:14 +1100 In-Reply-To: <20150210013532.GA6326@richard> References: <20150113180502.GC2776@google.com> <1421288887-7765-1-git-send-email-weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1421288887-7765-3-git-send-email-weiyang@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1423527979.4924.67.camel@au1.ibm.com> <20150210013532.GA6326@richard> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 09:35 +0800, Wei Yang wrote: > >Don't we want pcibios_sriov_enable() to be able to crop the number > >of VFs or do we think any resource limits have been applied > >already ? > > The second parameter "initial" is the number of VFs will be enabled. > Arch > dependent function will check the resources for these number of VFs. > > Do I catch your question correctly? I was wondering if the number of resource that can be enabled is smaller, should the arch function be able to return that smaller number and we would still enable that number ? Ie, have the arch function be able to "update" the value of "initial" (by passing it by pointer for example). Cheers, Ben.