[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y5gdpoif/1zBUKDB@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 07:37:26 +0100
From: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
alexandr.lobakin@...el.com, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com,
wojciech.drewek@...el.com, lukasz.czapnik@...el.com,
shiraz.saleem@...el.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
mustafa.ismail@...el.com, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com,
piotr.raczynski@...el.com, david.m.ertman@...el.com,
leszek.kaliszczuk@...el.com, benjamin.mikailenko@...el.com,
paul.m.stillwell.jr@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
leon@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 00/10] implement devlink reload in ice
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 10:46:09AM -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>
> On 12/12/2022 10:15 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 12:16:35 +0100 Michal Swiatkowski wrote:
> > > This is a part of changes done in patchset [0]. Resource management is
> > > kind of controversial part, so I split it into two patchsets.
> > >
> > > It is the first one, covering refactor and implement reload API call.
> > > The refactor will unblock some of the patches needed by SIOV or
> > > subfunction.
> > >
> > > Most of this patchset is about implementing driver reload mechanism.
> > > Part of code from probe and rebuild is used to not duplicate code.
> > > To allow this reuse probe and rebuild path are split into smaller
> > > functions.
> > >
> > > Patch "ice: split ice_vsi_setup into smaller functions" changes
> > > boolean variable in function call to integer and adds define
> > > for it. Instead of having the function called with true/false now it
> > > can be called with readable defines ICE_VSI_FLAG_INIT or
> > > ICE_VSI_FLAG_NO_INIT. It was suggested by Jacob Keller and probably this
> > > mechanism will be implemented across ice driver in follow up patchset.
> >
> > Does not apply, unfortunately, which makes it easier for me to answer
> > to the question "should I try to squeeze this into 6.2"..
> > Hopefully we can get some reviews, but the changes seem uncontroversial.
>
> Yea it seems a bit late to make it into 6.2, as much as that would be nice.
>
> We can always hold and test it on iwl until net-next re-opens.
>
It was targeted to Tony dev-queue to allow some tests as Jake said.
Sorry, probably I should point it out in cover letter.
Most of the changes are refactor of probe / remove path, so it will be
good to have some tests from iwl. I (or Tony as pull request) will send
it when the net-next re-opens. Thanks
> Thanks,
> Jake
Powered by blists - more mailing lists