On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:34:46PM +0000, Eli Cohen wrote: >> If we want to talk about the ABI, I would suggest drawing from existing >> ABIs. We already have >> drivers_autoprobe as part of the standard sysfs ABI, so if we want a binary >> switch, then >>sriov_drivers_autoprobe might be a logical choice. If you're concerned about >>this mythical overhead of > binding to one driver then another, then why not >>draw from the driver_override interface to allow the >> user to specify the driver to bind to, perhaps sriov_driver_override. Then >> if the user wants to bind all >> the devices to vfio-pci, they can do so easily. I still fail to see that >> probing some fixed number of the VFs >> and leaving the rest unprobed has any practical value and I imagine bugs >> coming in because users are >> confused why some of their VFs behave differently than others. Thanks, > >I agree with Alex - the interface should better be binary - either probe VFs >or not. The rest can be done with binding/unbinding VFs as necessary. The main >goal is to refrain from automatically initializing virtual functions at the >hypervisor if they were initially instantiated to assign then to guests. >
It's fairly reasonable. Thanks for confirm. I'll review v2. Thanks, Gavin
