[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BY5PR12MB43227F9431227959051B90B1DCD20@BY5PR12MB4322.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 07:21:50 +0000
From: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
CC: "mst@...hat.com" <mst@...hat.com>, Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH linux-next v2 7/7] vdpa_sim_net: Add support for user
supported devices
> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 12:35 PM
>
> On 2021/1/4 上午11:31, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > static int __init vdpasim_net_init(void)
> > {
> > int ret = 0;
> > @@ -176,6 +264,8 @@ static int __init vdpasim_net_init(void)
> >
> > if (default_device)
> > ret = vdpasim_net_default_dev_register();
> > + else
> > + ret = vdpasim_net_mgmtdev_init();
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -183,6 +273,8 @@ static void __exit vdpasim_net_exit(void)
> > {
> > if (default_device)
> > vdpasim_net_default_dev_unregister();
> > + else
> > + vdpasim_net_mgmtdev_cleanup();
> > }
> >
> > module_init(vdpasim_net_init);
> > -- 2.26.2
>
>
> I wonder what's the value of keeping the default device that is out of the
> control of management API.
I think we can remove it like how I did in the v1 version. And actual vendor drivers like mlx5_vdpa will likely should do only user created devices.
I added only for backward compatibility purpose, but we can remove the default simulated vdpa net device.
What do you recommend?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists