Re: [PATCH 0/2] sriov enablement on s390

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 02:45:14PM +0100, Sebastian Ott wrote:

Hello Bjorn,

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 02:55:07PM +0200, Sebastian Ott wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 02:34:09PM +0200, Sebastian Ott wrote:

quoted

On s390 we currently handle SRIOV within firmware. Which means
that the PF is under firmware control and not visible to operating
systems. SRIOV enablement happens within firmware and VFs are
passed through to logical partitions.

I'm working on a new mode were the PF is under operating system
control (including SRIOV enablement). However we still need
firmware support to access the VFs. The way this is supposed
to work is that when firmware traps the SRIOV enablement it
will present machine checks to the logical partition that
triggered the SRIOV enablement and provide the VFs via hotplug
events.

The problem I'm faced with is that the VF detection code in
sriov_enable leads to unusable functions in s390.

We're moving away from the weak function implementation style.  Can
you take a look at Arnd's work here, which uses pci_host_bridge
callbacks instead?

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180817102645.3839621-1-arnd@arndb.de

What's the status of Arnd's patches - will they go upstream in the next
couple of versions?

I hope so [1].  IIRC Arnd mentioned doing some minor updates, so I'm
waiting on that.

quoted

What about my patches that I rebased on Arnd's branch
will they be considered?

Definitely.  From my point of view they're just lined up behind Arnd's
patches.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20181002205903.GD120535@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com (local)

It appears like these patches are not in-line for the next merge window.
Would it be possible to go with my original patches (using __weak
functions)? (This would also make life easier with regards to backports)
I can post patches to convert this to use function pointers once Arnd's
patches make it to the kernel.

Yeah, sorry, I think we should just go with your original approach.

Can you repost those patches with minor changelog updates so
"git log --online" on the files looks consistent.  Also, capitalize
"PCI", "VF", etc, consistently when used in English text.

Bjorn