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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <BLUPR0701MB200496130E22B9820F7C1D858DF20@BLUPR0701MB2004.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:49:58 +0000 From: "Mintz, Yuval" <Yuval.Mintz@...ium.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org> CC: "oss-drivers@...ronome.com" <oss-drivers@...ronome.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 02/12] nfp: set driver VF limit > pf->limit_vfs = nfp_rtsym_read_le(pf->cpp, "nfd_vf_cfg_max_vfs", > &err); > if (!err) > - return; > + return pci_sriov_set_totalvfs(pf->pdev, pf->limit_vfs); While you're at it, If you're going to enforce the limit at the PCI level, shouldn't you retire 'limit_vfs' altogether? BTW, under which conditions would you expect to find a difference in the maximal number of VFs?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists