[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1506947750.18322.7.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 13:35:50 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
"Bryant G. Ly" <bryantly@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Bodong Wang <bodong@...lanox.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uio/uio_pci_generic: Add SR-IOV support
On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 12:56 -0400, Don Dutile wrote:
> Well, my point is more like: why put it in uio?
> why not make it available via pcie, setup while/if no driver attached?
> i.e., other non-uio users can use the mechanism.... like libvirt? ...
> if a PF driver isn't required.
This would allow you to enable SR-IOV on a PF before its driver is
loaded, right? Even when that driver *is* going to need to perform
resource management for those VFs?
Would existing drivers cope with SR-IOV being enabled, and VFs being
assigned to guests, before they're loaded? If so then sure, let's do it
generically. But I'm not sure that's the case.
As it is, the UIO driver is all about "userspace knows best". So if
there's resource management to be done, then userspace needs to do that
before enabling SR-IOV. And that's consistent with the current driver-
based enabling model for SR-IOV.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (4938 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists