On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeb...@intel.com> wrote:
Hi Jesse, > This series contains changes to i40evf so that it becomes a more > generic virtual function driver for current and future silicon. > > While doing the rename of i40evf to a more generic name of iavf, > we also put the driver on a severe diet due to how much of the > code was unneeded or was unused. The outcome is a lean and mean > virtual function driver that continues to work on existing 40GbE > (i40e) virtual devices and prepped for future supported devices, > like the 100GbE (ice) virtual devices. on what HW ring format do you standardize? do i40e/Fortville and ice/what's-the-intel-code-name? HWs can/use the same posting/completion descriptor? > This solves 2 issues we saw coming or were already present, the > first was constant code duplication happening with i40e/i40evf, > when much of the duplicate code in the i40evf was not used or was > not needed. could you spare few words on the origin/nature of these duplicates? were them just developer C&P mistakes for functionality which is irrelevant for a VF? like what? if not, what was there? > The second was to remove the future confusion of why > future VF devices that were not considered "40GbE" only devices > were supported by i40evf. can elaborate further? > The thought is that iavf will be the virtual function driver for > all future devices, so it should have a "generic" name to propery > represent that it is the VF driver for multiple generations of > devices. for that end, as I think was explained @ the netdev Tokyo AVF session, you would need a mechanism for feature negotiation, is it here or coming up? > 41 files changed, 3436 insertions(+), 7581 deletions(-) code diet is cool!
