On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:12 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
quoted text
> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com>
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:54:55 -0700
>
>> Since the issue isn't the igbvf driver there is no reason for it to
>> be held up.
>
> I disagree, I think both cases should be fixed.
>
> Just because we do something already never means that it's
> ok to proliferate the mistake further.

That isn't what I mean.  The code he is referring to exists nowhere in
the igbvf driver.  I suppose I can edit the igbvf commit comments so
that they don't mention the sysfs entry, but the code is in the igb
driver.

Also I just want to clarify.  It isn't fair to compare igbvf to
macvlan.  A better comparison would be virtio since it is meant to run
on a guest, not on the hypervisor/DOM0 OS.  I have also been looking
all over for an example that is even close to what we are looking for
and the sad fact is that the closest thing I can find in the kernel is
the DCB netlink code since it effects the number of queues in use. ,
and I don't have the time to implement anything like that before the
merge window is closed.

What I want to know is if I get rid of the sysfs entry in igb and go
with a static number of VFs, and remove the commit comment referencing
the sysfs entry for igbvf will that be enough to get this accepted for
2.6.30?

Thanks,

Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html