On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 07:25:35PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:11:38PM CEST, [email protected] > wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 05:43:25PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >> Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 04:46:23PM CEST, [email protected] > >> wrote: > >> >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) > >> > >> Sorry, but how is this relevant to my suggestion to use > >> devl_port_fn_devlink_set() which you apparently don't? > >> > > > >Devlink port to link with is introduced in the port representor part. > >Strange, but it fitted to my splitting. I can move > >activation/deactivation part also to this patchset (as there is no > >devlink port to call it on) if you want. > > You have 7 more patches to use in this set. No problem. Please do it all > at once. >
Ok, as whole will still not fit into 15 I sent preparation patchset for representor [1]. Now the patchset based on this preparation have 14 patches, so I hope it is fine (including linking that you mentioned). I will send it right after the preparation patchset is applied. I am going on the 2 weeks vacation, so my replies will be delayed. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/T/#t Thanks, Michal > > > > >> > >> > > >> >[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); > >> >> >> >+} > >> >> >> >+ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> [...]
