[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6a174081-0187-551c-4b34-17a59ad38230@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:19:51 -0800
From: Shannon Nelson <shnelson@....com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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 11/30/22 7:45 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:12:23 -0800 Shannon Nelson wrote:
>>
>> We're not asking for a special model, just to use the PF interface to
>> configure VFs as has been the practice in the past.
>
> It simply does not compute for me. You're exposing a very advanced vDPA
> interface, and yet you say you don't need any network configuration
> beyond what Niantic had.
Would you have the same responses if we were trying to do this same kind
of PF netdev on a simple Niantic-like device (simple sr-iov support,
little filtering capability)?
>
> There are no upstream-minded users of IPUs, if it was up to me I'd flat
> out ban them from the kernel.
Yeah, there's a lot of hidden magic going on behind the PCI devices
presented to the host, and a lot of it depends on the use cases
attempting to be addressed by the different product vendors and their
various cloud and enterprise customers. I tend to think that the most
friction here comes from us being more familiar and comfortable with the
enterprise use cases where we typically own the whole host, and not so
comfortable these newer cloud use cases with control and configuration
coming from outside the host.
sln
Powered by blists - more mailing lists