netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] nfp: support VF multi-queues configuration

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: <20221020013524.GA27547@nj-rack01-04.nji.corigine.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2022 09:35:24 +0800
From:   Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Peng Zhang <peng.zhang@...igine.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        oss-drivers@...igine.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] nfp: support VF multi-queues configuration

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 06:01:06PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:09:40 +0200 Simon Horman wrote:
> > this short series adds the max_vf_queue generic devlink device parameter,
> > the intention of this is to allow configuration of the number of queues
> > associated with VFs, and facilitates having VFs with different queue
> > counts.
> > 
> > The series also adds support for multi-queue VFs to the nfp driver
> > and support for the max_vf_queue feature described above.
> 
> I appreciate CCing a wider group this time, but my concerns about using
> devlink params for resource allocation still stand. I don't remember
> anyone refuting that.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220921063448.5b0dd32b@kernel.org/

Sorry this part was neglected, we'll take a look into the resource APIs.
Thanks.