On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 12:58:59AM +0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:21:56PM +0800, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > + my_mac_addr[5] = (unsigned char)i;
> > + igb_set_vf_mac(netdev, i, my_mac_addr);
> > + igb_set_vf_vmolr(adapter, i);
> > + }
> > + } else
> > + printk(KERN_INFO "SR-IOV is disabled\n");
>
> Is that really true? (oh, use dev_info as well.) What happens if you
> had called this with "5" and then later with "0", you never destroyed
> those existing virtual functions, yet the code does:
>
> > + adapter->vfs_allocated_count = nr_virtfn;
>
> Which makes the driver think they are not present. What happens when
> the driver later goes to shut down? Are those resources freed up
> properly?
For now we hard-code the tx/rx queues allocation so this doesn't
matter. Eventually this will become dynamic allocation: when number
of VFs changes the corresponding resources need to be freed.
I'll put more comments here.
Thanks,
Yu
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home