From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3] igbvf: add new driver to support 82576 virtual functions Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:27:28 -0700 Message-ID: <5f2db9d90903252027n7079ca54v76c06ec3849c65d9@mail.gmail.com> References: <49CAB13B.7070601@intel.com> <20090325.165847.234084422.davem@davemloft.net> <49CAD25F.4080705@intel.com> <20090325.201219.98810772.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, gospo@redhat.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.44.30]:7825 "EHLO yx-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751897AbZCZDdo (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:33:44 -0400 Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 31so341317yxl.1 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:33:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090325.201219.98810772.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Alexander Duyck > Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:54:55 -0700 > >> Since the issue isn't the igbvf driver there is no reason for it to >> be held up. > > I disagree, I think both cases should be fixed. > > Just because we do something already never means that it's > ok to proliferate the mistake further. That isn't what I mean. The code he is referring to exists nowhere in the igbvf driver. I suppose I can edit the igbvf commit comments so that they don't mention the sysfs entry, but the code is in the igb driver. Also I just want to clarify. It isn't fair to compare igbvf to macvlan. A better comparison would be virtio since it is meant to run on a guest, not on the hypervisor/DOM0 OS. I have also been looking all over for an example that is even close to what we are looking for and the sad fact is that the closest thing I can find in the kernel is the DCB netlink code since it effects the number of queues in use. , and I don't have the time to implement anything like that before the merge window is closed. What I want to know is if I get rid of the sysfs entry in igb and go with a static number of VFs, and remove the commit comment referencing the sysfs entry for igbvf will that be enough to get this accepted for 2.6.30? Thanks, Alex