netdev - RE: [RFC PATCH 5/7] Multiple VF's grouped together under single physical port called PF group PF Group maintainance API's

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]

Date:   Mon, 26 Dec 2016 14:16:04 +0000
From:   "Koteshwar Rao, Satha" <Satha.Rao@...ium.com>
To:     Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@...il.com>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Goutham, Sunil" <Sunil.Goutham@...ium.com>,
        Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Daney, David" <David.Daney@...ium.com>,
        "Vatsavayi, Raghu" <Raghu.Vatsavayi@...ium.com>,
        "Chickles, Derek" <Derek.Chickles@...ium.com>,
        "Romanov, Philip" <Philip.Romanov@...ium.com>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 5/7] Multiple VF's grouped together under single
 physical port called PF group PF Group maintainance API's

Thanks for suggestion. Will clean up code in next revision

Thanks,
Satha

-----Original Message-----
From: Sunil Kovvuri [mailto:sunil.kovvuri@...il.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 4:44 AM
To: Koteshwar Rao, Satha
Cc: LKML; Goutham, Sunil; Robert Richter; David S. Miller; Daney, David; Vatsavayi, Raghu; Chickles, Derek; Romanov, Philip; Linux Netdev List; LAKML
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/7] Multiple VF's grouped together under single physical port called PF group PF Group maintainance API's

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Satha Koteswara Rao <satha.rao@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:
> +struct tns_global_st {
> +       u64 magic;
> +       char     version[16];
> +       u64 reg_cnt;
> +       struct table_static_s tbl_info[TNS_MAX_TABLE]; };
> +
> +#define PF_COUNT 3
> +#define PF_1   0
> +#define PF_2   64
> +#define PF_3   96
> +#define PF_END 128

Some comments please ... what is 0, 64, 96 ??
You can read PCI_SRIOV_TOTAL_VF from PCI config space instead of defining PF_END with 128.