Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:37:54AM +0800, Jike Song wrote: >> Jesse Barnes wrote: >>> Given a respin of 10-13 I think it's reasonable to merge this into 2.6.29, >>> but >>> I'd be much happier about it if we got some driver code along with it, so >>> as >>> not to have an unused interface sitting around for who knows how many >>> releases. Is that reasonable? Do you know if any of the corresponding >>> PF/VF >>> driver bits are ready yet? >> Hi Jesse, >> >> Yu Zhao has posted a patch set with subject "SR-IOV driver example" >> at November 26, which illustrated the usage of SR-IOV API in Intel 82576 >> VF/PF >> drivers;-) > > Yes, but that driver was soundly rejected by the network driver > maintainers, so I wouldn't go around showing that as your primary > example of how to use this interface :) > > The point is valid, I don't think these apis should go into the tree > without a driver or some other code using them. Otherwise they make no > sense at all to have in-tree.
I agree the point is valid, but on another hand this is a 'the chicken & the egg' problem -- if we don't have the SR-IOV base, people who are developing PF drivers can not get their changes in-tree. Maybe they are holding the patches and waiting on the infrastructure... :-) _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
