netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V6 01/13] devlink: Add 'total

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aLi0B9KQsGgjGF67@x130>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 14:32:55 -0700
From: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	Vlad Dumitrescu <vdumitrescu@...dia.com>,
	Kamal Heib <kheib@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V6 01/13] devlink: Add 'total_vfs' generic
 device param

On 02 Sep 14:24, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>
>On 7/9/2025 10:38 PM, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> On 09 Jul 19:53, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Tue,  8 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>>>> +   * - ``total_vfs``
>>>> +     - u32
>>>> +     - The total number of Virtual Functions (VFs) supported by the PF.
>>>
>>> "supported" is not the right word for a tunable..
>>
>>  From kernel Doc:
>>
>> int pci_sriov_get_totalvfs(struct pci_dev *dev)
>> get total VFs _supported_ on this device
>>
>> Anyway:
>> "supported" => "exposed" ?
>>
>>
>
>The parameter relates to the maximum number of VFs you could create. It
>sounds like this hardware by default sets to 0, and you can change that
>in the NVM with external tools. This adds a devlink parameter to allow
>setting to be changed from the kernel tools.
>
>exposed seems reasonable to me. You could also have language that
>explains this is about a maximum, since this changes the value reported
>by pci_sriov_get_totalvfs. You still have the usual means to
>enable/disable VFs via the standard PCI interfaces.

Sounds good, will change to "exposed" and add the language about 'maximum'.