netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v3] igbvf: add new driver to support 82576 virtual functions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5f2db9d90903252027n7079ca54v76c06ec3849c65d9@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:27:28 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, shemminger@...tta.com,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	gospo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3] igbvf: add new driver to support 82576 
	virtual functions

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:12 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html