[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210311232059.GR2356281@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 19:20:59 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next v7 0/4] Dynamically assign MSI-X vectors count
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:49:24PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > We don't need to invent new locks and new complexity for something
> > that is trivially solved already.
>
> I am not wanting a new lock. What I am wanting is a way to mark the VF
> as being stale/offline while we are performing the update. With that
> we would be able to apply similar logic to any changes in the future.
I think we should hold off doing this until someone comes up with HW
that needs it. The response time here is microseconds, it is not worth
any complexity
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists