Re: [PATCH net-next 01/14] qed: Add CONFIG_QED_SRIOV

2016-05-10 Thread David Miller
From: Yuval Mintz Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 18:15:08 + >> > I'm not entirely convinced this is true; If we'll not enforce the >> > alignment of this 64-bit field, it's possible there will be >> > differences between 32-bit and 64-bit machines versions of this struct. >>

RE: [PATCH net-next 01/14] qed: Add CONFIG_QED_SRIOV

2016-05-10 Thread Yuval Mintz
> > > I'm not entirely convinced this is true; If we'll not enforce the > > > alignment of this 64-bit field, it's possible there will be > > > differences between 32-bit and 64-bit machines versions of this struct. > > > You have to recall that this is going to be copied via DMA between > > > PF

RE: [PATCH net-next 01/14] qed: Add CONFIG_QED_SRIOV

2016-05-10 Thread Yuval Mintz
> > I'm not entirely convinced this is true; If we'll not enforce the > > alignment of this 64-bit field, it's possible there will be > > differences between 32-bit and 64-bit machines versions of this struct. > > You have to recall that this is going to be copied via DMA between PF > > and VF, so

Re: [PATCH net-next 01/14] qed: Add CONFIG_QED_SRIOV

2016-05-10 Thread David Miller
From: Alexander Duyck Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:02:09 -0700 > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Yuval Mintz wrote: >> > From: Yuval Mintz >>> Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:19:10 +0300 >>> >>> > + /* bitmap indicating

Re: [PATCH net-next 01/14] qed: Add CONFIG_QED_SRIOV

2016-05-10 Thread David Miller
From: Yuval Mintz Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 17:16:16 + > I'm not entirely convinced this is true; If we'll not enforce the alignment > of this 64-bit field, it's possible there will be differences between 32-bit > and 64-bit machines versions of this struct. > You have

Re: [PATCH net-next 01/14] qed: Add CONFIG_QED_SRIOV

2016-05-10 Thread Alexander Duyck
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Yuval Mintz wrote: > > From: Yuval Mintz >> Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:19:10 +0300 >> >> > + /* bitmap indicating which fields hold valid values */ >> > + aligned_u64 valid_bitmap; >> >> There is absolutely no

RE: [PATCH net-next 01/14] qed: Add CONFIG_QED_SRIOV

2016-05-10 Thread Yuval Mintz
> From: Yuval Mintz > Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:19:10 +0300 > > > + /* bitmap indicating which fields hold valid values */ > > + aligned_u64 valid_bitmap; > > There is absolutely no reason to use aligned_u64 here. That type is for > handling > a specific issue in

Re: [PATCH net-next 01/14] qed: Add CONFIG_QED_SRIOV

2016-05-09 Thread David Miller
From: Yuval Mintz Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:19:10 +0300 > + /* bitmap indicating which fields hold valid values */ > + aligned_u64 valid_bitmap; There is absolutely no reason to use aligned_u64 here. That type is for handling a specific issue in user facing APIs,

[PATCH net-next 01/14] qed: Add CONFIG_QED_SRIOV

2016-05-09 Thread Yuval Mintz
Add support for a new Kconfig option for qed* driver which would allow [eventually] the support in VFs. This patch adds the necessary logic in the PF to learn about the possible VFs it will have to support [Based on PCI configuration space and HW], and prepare a database with an entry per-VF as