> On Oct 1, 2025, at 7:00 PM, John Hubbard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10/1/25 3:52 PM, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>> On Thu Oct 2, 2025 at 12:38 AM CEST, John Hubbard wrote: >>> On 10/1/25 6:52 AM, Zhi Wang wrote: >>>> On 1.10.2025 13.32, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>>>> On Wed Oct 1, 2025 at 3:22 AM CEST, John Hubbard wrote: >>>>>> On 9/30/25 5:29 PM, Alistair Popple wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-10-01 at 08:07 +1000, John Hubbard <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote... >>> ... >>> As I mentioned in the other fork of this thread, I do think this is >>> a good start. So unless someone disagrees, I'd like to go with this >>> series (perhaps with better wording in the commit messages, and maybe >>> a better comment above the probe() failure return) for now. >> >> Indicating whether the driver supports VFs through a boolean in struct >> pci_driver is about the same effort (well, maybe slightly more), but solves >> the >> problem in a cleaner way since it avoids probe() being called in the first >> place. Other existing drivers benefit from that as well. > > Yes, that is cleaner, and like you say, nearly as easy. > >> >> Forget about the SR-IOV RFC I was talking about; I really just intended to >> offer >> to take care of that. :) > > I can send out a v2 with that "PCI driver bool: supports VFs" approach, > glad to do that.
Here is my opinion and correct me if I missed something: It feels premature to remove the option of nova-core binding to a VF, since other options to disable auto probing do exist as Jason pointed out. Taking a parallel with VFIO pass through for instance, the user already has to do some diligence like preventing drivers from binding and then making vfio-pci bind to the device IDs. This case is similar though slightly different, but VFIO setup requires some configuration anyway so will it really improve anything? I quietly suggest holding on till there is a real need or we are sure nova cannot bind to, or operate on a VF. This might also close the door to say any future testing we may do by binding to a VF for instance (yes we can delete a statement but..). Just my suggestion, but I do not strongly oppose either. thanks, - Joel > > > thanks, > -- > John Hubbard >
