[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875z64xrrj.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:21:52 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Tian\, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: "Raj\, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Wilk\, Konrad" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"Williams\, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Jiang\, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
"vkoul\@kernel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"Dey\, Megha" <megha.dey@...el.com>,
"maz\@kernel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
"bhelgaas\@google.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"alex.williamson\@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"Pan\, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
"Liu\, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
"Lu\, Baolu" <baolu.lu@...el.com>,
"Kumar\, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
"Luck\, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"kwankhede\@nvidia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
"eric.auger\@redhat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"parav\@mellanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
"rafael\@kernel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"netanelg\@mellanox.com" <netanelg@...lanox.com>,
"shahafs\@mellanox.com" <shahafs@...lanox.com>,
"yan.y.zhao\@linux.intel.com" <yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com>,
"pbonzini\@redhat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Ortiz\, Samuel" <samuel.ortiz@...el.com>,
"Hossain\, Mona" <mona.hossain@...el.com>,
"dmaengine\@vger.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm\@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 06/17] PCI: add SIOV and IMS capability detection
On Mon, Nov 16 2020 at 23:51, Kevin Tian wrote:
>> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> btw Jason/Thomas, how do you think about the proposal down in this
> thread (ims=[auto|on|off])? Does it sound a good tradeoff to move forward?
What does it solve? It defaults to auto and then you still need to solve
the problem of figuring out whether it's safe to use it or not.
The command line option is not a solution per se. It's the last resort
when the logic which decides whether IMS can be used or not fails to do
the right thing. Nothing more.
We clearly have outlined what needs to be done and you can come up with
as many magic bullets you want, they won't make the real problems go
away.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists