netdev - Re: [net-next v2 1/1] virtual-bus: Implementation of Virtual Bus

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:   Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:29:05 -0500 (EST)
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, nhorman@...hat.com,
        sassmann@...hat.com, Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v2 1/1] virtual-bus: Implementation of Virtual Bus



----- Original Message -----
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 01:58:42PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:46:32PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > As always, this is all very hard to tell without actually seeing real
> > > accelerated drivers implement this.
> > > 
> > > Your patch series might be a bit premature in this regard.
> > 
> > Actually drivers implementing this have been posted, haven't they?
> > See e.g. https://lwn.net/Articles/804379/
> 
> Is that a real driver? It looks like another example quality
> thing.

I think the answer is obvious:

+static struct pci_driver ifcvf_driver = {
+	.name     = IFCVF_DRIVER_NAME,
+	.id_table = ifcvf_pci_ids,
+	.probe    = ifcvf_probe,
+	.remove   = ifcvf_remove,
+};

> 
> For instance why do we need any of this if it has '#define
> IFCVF_MDEV_LIMIT 1' ?

This is just because virtio was done at VF level.

Thanks

> 
> Surely for this HW just use vfio over the entire PCI function and be
> done with it?
> 
> Jason
> 
>