Re: [net-next v2 00/12][pull request] Intel Wired LAN Driver Updates

[Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2231 bytes --]

On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 16:19 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
> Date: Thu,  6 Mar 2014 18:59:12 -0800
> 
> > This series contains updates to i40e and i40evf.
> > 
> > Most notable are:
> > Joseph completes the implementation of the ethtool ntuple rule
> > management interface by adding the get, update and delete interface
> > reset.
> > 
> > Akeem provides a fix to prevent a possible overflow due to multiplication
> > of number and size by using kzalloc, so use kcalloc.
> > 
> > Jesse provides an implementation for skb_set_hash() and adds the L4 type
> > return when we know it is an L4 hash.  He also adds a counter to
> > statistics for Tx timeouts to help users.  Lastly he provides a change
> > to stay away from the cache line where the done bit may be getting
> > written back for the transmit ring since the hardware may be writing the
> > whole cache line for a partial update.
> > 
> > Shannon cleans up code comments.
> > 
> > Anjali removes a firmware workaround for newer firmware since the number
> > of MSIx vectors are being reported correctly.
> > 
> > v2:
> >  -  dropped patch 01 of the series based on feedback from the author
> >     Joe Perches and Shannon Nelson.
> 
> Pulled, thanks Jeff.
> 
> And I'd like to make a broad long-term comment, actually about vf
> drivers in general....
> 
> There is so much common code between pf and vf drivers, as a quick
> example even in this patch set the skb_set_hash() stuff is pretty
> much the same for i40e and i40evf.
> 
> I realize there are subtle differences between vf and pf, however
> you can't say that there isn't a metric ton of common code.
> 
> Please consider seriously making a common layer for these kinds of
> driver pairs.  I absolutely do not care, as an initial step, if the
> common code just gets linked directly into the final module object
> for the two drivers.  Although eventually it would be nice if the
> common layer driver was a shared module object on it's own that is
> simply depended upon by the pf and vf drivers.
> 
> Thanks.

Thanks Dave!  I will work with i40e developers to get a solution put
together for the shared code.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]