On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 02:40:16PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
>Hi Gavin,
>
>On 2016/7/1 14:05, Gavin Shan wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 01:27:17PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 06:53:08PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
>VF BARs are read-only zeroes according to SRIOV spec,
Hi Gavin,
On 2016/7/1 14:05, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 01:27:17PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 06:53:08PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
VF BARs are read-only zeroes according to SRIOV spec,
the normal way(writing BARs) of allocating resources wouldn't
be
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 01:27:17PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
>>On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 06:53:08PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
>>>VF BARs are read-only zeroes according to SRIOV spec,
>>>the normal way(writing BARs) of allocating resources wouldn't
>>>be applied to VFs. The VFs' resources would be
Hi Gavin,
On 2016/7/1 8:39, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 06:53:08PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
VF BARs are read-only zeroes according to SRIOV spec,
the normal way(writing BARs) of allocating resources wouldn't
be applied to VFs. The VFs' resources would be allocated
when we enable
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 06:53:08PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
>VF BARs are read-only zeroes according to SRIOV spec,
>the normal way(writing BARs) of allocating resources wouldn't
>be applied to VFs. The VFs' resources would be allocated
>when we enable SR-IOV capability. So we should not try to
VF BARs are read-only zeroes according to SRIOV spec,
the normal way(writing BARs) of allocating resources wouldn't
be applied to VFs. The VFs' resources would be allocated
when we enable SR-IOV capability. So we should not try to
reassign alignment after we enable VFs. It's meaningless
and will
