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  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]
Date:   Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:21:27 +0000
From:   "Vatsavayi, Raghu" <Raghu.Vatsavayi@...ium.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next V3 0/9] liquidio CN23XX VF support


Hi Dave,

Regarding module parameters num_queues_per_{p,v}f, in non-default case if user wants to have multiple queues then because of the way Liquidio HW works we need num_queues_per_pf and num_queues_per_vf module parameters at HW/module init time. This is because in multi-queues per VF scenario, HW has to carve these queues before FW can start communicating with PF/VF host drivers. So we must include these two parameters incase more than queue is needed by VF.

I did not get reply from you when I requested you for confirmation couple of weeks back about the same two module parameters as shown in the mail attachment. 

So please confirm if you want us to remove these two parameters num_queues_per_{p,v}f. Then I can remove these module parameters and resubmit the patches. 

Thanks and Regards
Raghu.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 11:31 AM
> To: Vatsavayi, Raghu
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3 0/9] liquidio CN23XX VF support
> 
> From: Raghu Vatsavayi <rvatsavayi@...iumnetworks.com>
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:57:01 -0700
> 
> > 2) As recommended by you removed custom module parameter max_vfs.
> 
> I feel the same way about num_queues_per_{p,v}f.
> 
> What's really strange is that there is a reference to num_queues_per_pf in
> one of the kernel log messages already.

Content of type "message/rfc822" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists