On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 03:02:49PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 02:48:53PM CEST, [email protected] > wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 02:04:21PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:20:25PM CEST, [email protected] > >> wrote: > >> >From: Piotr Raczynski <[email protected]> > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> >+/** > >> >+ * ice_allocate_sf - Allocate devlink and return SF structure pointer > >> >+ * @dev: the device to allocate for > >> >+ * > >> >+ * Allocate a devlink instance for SF. > >> >+ * > >> >+ * Return: void pointer to allocated memory > >> >+ */ > >> >+struct ice_sf_priv *ice_allocate_sf(struct device *dev) > >> > >> This is devlink instance for SF auxdev. Please make sure it is properly > >> linked with the devlink port instance using devl_port_fn_devlink_set() > >> See mlx5 implementation for inspiration. > >> > >> > > > >I am going to do it in the last patchset. I know that it isn't the best > > Where? Either I'm blind or you don't do it. > >
You told me to split few patches from first patchset [1]. We agree that there will be too many patches for one submission, so I split it into 3: - 1/3 devlink prework (already accepted) - 2/3 base subfunction (this patchset) - 3/3 port representor refactor to support subfunction (I am going to include it there) [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/ Thanks, Michal > >option to split patchesets like that, but it was hard to do it differently. > > > >Thanks, > >Michal > > > >> >+{ > >> >+ return ice_devlink_alloc(dev, sizeof(struct ice_sf_priv), > >> >+ &ice_sf_devlink_ops); > >> >+} > >> >+ > >> > >> [...]
