[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+sq2CdDuimDCYK+9arO7-oRpNxdynX+rqYwpeBi9C_R+4pQNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 16:22:07 +0530
From: Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@...il.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
dan.daly@...el.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, keith.busch@...el.com,
netanel@...zon.com, ddutile@...hat.com, mheyne@...zon.de,
liang-min.wang@...el.com, mark.d.rustad@...el.com,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, dwmw@...zon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [pci PATCH v8 4/4] pci-pf-stub: Add PF driver stub for PFs that
function only to enable VFs
Hi,
> +static struct pci_driver pf_stub_driver = {
> + .name = "pci-pf-stub",
> + .id_table = pci_pf_stub_white_list,
> + .probe = pci_pf_stub_probe,
> + .sriov_configure = pci_sriov_configure_simple,
> +};
> +
Is there any specific reason for not disabling SRIOV upon driver unload/remove ?
i.e if a user sets numVFs to a non-zero value and unloads this driver
then we have a
situation where there is no PF driver in kernel but VFs still exist.
Thanks,
Sunil.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists