[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:35:40 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To: Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
Cc: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] ionic: support sr-iov operations
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:59:50 -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> On 12/12/19 11:52 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:53:42 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >>> static void ionic_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >>> {
> >>> struct ionic *ionic = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >>> @@ -257,6 +338,9 @@ static void ionic_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> >>> if (!ionic)
> >>> return;
> >>>
> >>> + if (pci_num_vf(pdev))
> >>> + ionic_sriov_configure(pdev, 0);
> >>> +
> >> Usually sriov is left enabled while removing PF.
> >> It is not the role of the pci PF removal to disable it sriov.
> > I don't think that's true. I consider igb and ixgbe to set the standard
> > for legacy SR-IOV handling since they were one of the first (the first?)
> > and Alex Duyck wrote them.
> >
> > mlx4, bnxt and nfp all disable SR-IOV on remove.
>
> This was my understanding as well, but now I can see that ixgbe and i40e
> are both checking for existing VFs in probe and setting up to use them,
> as well as the newer ice driver. I found this today by looking for
> where they use pci_num_vf().
Right, if the VFs very already enabled on probe they are set up.
It's a bit of a asymmetric design, in case some other driver left
SR-IOV on, I guess.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists