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