From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F256C2D0BF for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:59:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24472207FF for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:59:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1576486740; bh=EnZQIWB1lA6ulYzXsZ8ljZJd1sLn8omB6XyKYMsh2GY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=xo1xr6BG8EtfFrdK7CBOU+XLYUVszrh/Hfx/uaTLLLfL89n+f/v4sgVvdS7bcutHT kZ5PePZ3vc19IJud7KvcTaG7RqZm829lIGVBUuzbALDkmDcFKwBPNMynchiVJWbS7X 1A3niUkIBCgoSX73PTfq8aukjGvkEEIGp3Qgnny8= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726960AbfLPI67 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 03:58:59 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:54954 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726772AbfLPI67 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 03:58:59 -0500 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBDC620725; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:58:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1576486738; bh=EnZQIWB1lA6ulYzXsZ8ljZJd1sLn8omB6XyKYMsh2GY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ASetZ31CjFD2xyc3mPFsySo7doulRnvUBwtHsaEY02XZV/UIi7LpWDwMFQDs5xpf4 G6ToqsVjwYtUaVsvdlkUQ83lNetmQbjf8ZhNViroGGBZheTDa9U5+6wa6X+vXG/2cy AviTx68x1qxjNh/4WNye3ZKb9+CyR+uXeUdYKCrQ= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:58:52 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Parav Pandit Cc: Jeff Kirsher , "davem@davemloft.net" , Shiraz Saleem , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "nhorman@redhat.com" , "sassmann@redhat.com" , "jgg@ziepe.ca" , Mustafa Ismail Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/20] i40e: Register a virtbus device to provide RDMA Message-ID: <20191216085852.GA1139951@kroah.com> References: <20191209224935.1780117-1-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <20191209224935.1780117-5-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <20191210153959.GD4053085@kroah.com> <4b7ee2ce-1415-7c58-f00e-6fdad08c1e99@mellanox.com> <20191216071509.GA916540@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 08:36:02AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > On 12/16/2019 12:45 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 03:48:05AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > [..] > >>> I feel like the virtual bus code is getting better, but this use of the > >>> code, um, no, not ok. > >>> > >>> Either way, this series is NOT ready to be merged anywhere, please do > >>> not try to rush things. > >>> > >>> Also, what ever happened to my "YOU ALL MUST AGREE TO WORK TOGETHER" > >>> requirement between this group, and the other group trying to do the > >>> same thing? I want to see signed-off-by from EVERYONE involved before > >>> we are going to consider this thing. > >> > >> I am working on RFC where PCI device is sliced to create sub-functions. > >> Each sub-function/slice is created dynamically by the user. > >> User gives sf-number at creation time which will be used for plumbing by > >> systemd/udev, devlink ports. > > > > That sounds exactly what is wanted here as well, right? > > Not exactly. > Here, in i40 use case - there is a PCI function. > This PCI function is used by two drivers: > (1) vendor_foo_netdev.ko creating Netdevice (class net) > (2) vendor_foo_rdma.ko creating RDMA device (class infiniband) > > And both drivers are notified using matching service virtbus, which > attempts to create to two virtbus_devices with different driver-id, one > for each class of device. Yes, that is fine. > However, devices of both class (net, infiniband) will have parent device > as PCI device. That is fine. > In case of sub-functions, created rdma and netdevice will have parent as > the sub-function 'struct device'. This way those SFs gets their > systemd/udev plumbing done rightly. huh? The rdma and netdevice will have as their parent device the virtdevice that is on the virtbus. Not the PCI device's 'struct device'. thanks, greg k-h