[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221129180250.3320da56@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 18:02:50 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Shannon Nelson <shnelson@....com>
Cc: Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, drivers@...sando.io
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 08/19] pds_core: initial VF configuration
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:57:25 -0800 Shannon Nelson wrote:
> >> Yes, a PF representor simply so we can get access to the .ndo_set_vf_xxx
> >> interfaces. There is no network traffic running through the PF.
> >
> > In that case not only have you come up with your own name for
> > a SmartNIC, you also managed to misuse one of our existing terms
> > in your own way! It can't pass any traffic it's just a dummy to hook
> > the legacy vf ndos to. It's the opposite of what a repr is.
>
> Sorry, this seemed to me an reasonable use of the term. Is there an
> alternative wording we should use for this case?
>
> Are there other existing methods we can use for getting the VF
> configurations from the user, or does this make sense to keep in our
> current simple model?
Enough back and forth. I'm not going to come up with a special model
just for you when a model already exists, and you present no technical
argument against it.
I am against merging your code, if you want to override find other
vendors and senior upstream reviewers who will side with you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists