From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3] igbvf: add new driver to support 82576 virtual functions Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:21:08 -0700 Message-ID: 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=us-ascii 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 sj-iport-2.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71]:45610 "EHLO sj-iport-2.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755193AbZCZDVL (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:21:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090325.201219.98810772.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:12:19 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > 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. The igbvf driver doesn't proliferate any mistake. The num_vfs sysfs attribute that everyone finds so objectionable is in the igb driver, and if you follow the patchwork URL that was provided, you would see that you applied the patch adding it back in February. The only thing the igbvf driver does relating to this is bind to the PCI ID of the virtual functions created by the igb driver. - R.