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: <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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ