Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:22:46 -0700 | From | Alexander Duyck <> | Subject | Re: [net-next PATCH 1/2] igbvf: add new driver to support 82576 virtual functions |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:12:48 -0700 Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for all the comments. I tried to incorporate most of them into >> the igbvf driver and also ended up porting some over to our other >> drivers, specifically igb since the igbvf driver copies much of the code. >> >> I have added my comments inline below. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Alex >> >> Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:09:28 -0700 Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> wrote: >>> >>>> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@intel.com> >>>> >>>> This adds an igbvf driver to handle virtual functions provided >>>> by the igb driver. >>> The drive-by reader is now wondering what a "virtual function" is. > > ^^ this comment was missed. > > I was indirectly asking for an overview (preferably in the changelog) of > what the whole patch actually does.
Sorry, while I missed the comment in my response I had gotten to addressing it in the next version. I updated it to more thoroughly describe what the VF driver is doing. I also included instructions on how to enable the VFs from the PF so that they can be tested.
>>>> +static int igbvf_set_ringparam(struct net_device *netdev, >>>> + struct ethtool_ringparam *ring) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct igbvf_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev); >>>> + struct igbvf_ring *tx_ring, *tx_old; >>>> + struct igbvf_ring *rx_ring, *rx_old; >>>> + int err; >>>> + >>>> + if ((ring->rx_mini_pending) || (ring->rx_jumbo_pending)) >>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>> + >>>> + while (test_and_set_bit(__IGBVF_RESETTING, &adapter->state)) >>>> + msleep(1); >>> No timeout needed here? Interrupts might not be working, for example.. >> This bit isn't set in interrupt context. This is always used out of >> interrupt context and is just to prevent multiple setting changes at the >> same time. > > Oh. Can't use plain old mutex_lock()?
We have one or two spots that actually check to see if the bit is set and just report a warning instead of actually waiting on the bit to clear.
| |