From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754780AbYIJUHe (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:07:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752148AbYIJUHY (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:07:24 -0400 Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:58563 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751876AbYIJUHX (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:07:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:07:21 -0600 From: Matthew Wilcox To: "Zhao, Yu" Cc: Roland Dreier , Alex Chiang , Jesse Barnes , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap , Greg KH , Grant Grundler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4 v2] PCI: support ARI capability Message-ID: <20080910200721.GI2772@parisc-linux.org> References: <7A25B56E4BE99C4283EB931CD1A40E110181CAF7@pdsmsx414.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7A25B56E4BE99C4283EB931CD1A40E110181CAF7@pdsmsx414.ccr.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 03:48:04PM +0800, Zhao, Yu wrote: > >I agree with this improvement to the help text. But a further question > >is whether ARI even merits its own user-visible config option. Is it > >worth having yet another choice for users? When would someone want ARI > >but not SR-IOV? > > ARI is an independent PCI Express extended capability. Multi-function devices supporting this capability may use it to track dependency between different functions and assign function group numbers to these functions. > > Another reason to keep this separated with SR-IOV is that after ARI is enabled, PCI Express Endpoint may have non-zero slot number (device number), which is different from traditional PCI Express Endpoint. Let me ask the question slightly differently: Why would someone want to turn the capability off? Is it just to save a few hundred bytes in the kernel image, or is there some hardware that won't work? Or some other reason I haven't thought of? -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."