Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:31:15AM CEST, michal.swiatkow...@linux.intel.com wrote: >On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 01:16:05PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Tue, May 07, 2024 at 01:45:09PM CEST, michal.swiatkow...@linux.intel.com >> wrote: >> >Store subfunction and VF pointer in port representor structure as an >> >union. Add port representor type to distinguish between each of them. >> > >> >Keep the same flow of port representor creation, but instead of general >> >attach function create helpers for VF and subfunction attach function. >> > >> >Type of port representor can be also known based on VSI type, but it >> >is more clean to have it directly saved in port representor structure. >> > >> >Create port representor when subfunction port is created. >> > >> >Add devlink lock for whole VF port representor creation and destruction. >> >It is done to be symmetric with what happens in case of SF port >> >representor. SF port representor is always added or removed with devlink >> >lock taken. Doing the same with VF port representor simplify logic. >> > >> >Reviewed-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.dre...@intel.com> >> >Signed-off-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkow...@linux.intel.com> >> >--- >> > .../ethernet/intel/ice/devlink/devlink_port.c | 6 +- >> > .../ethernet/intel/ice/devlink/devlink_port.h | 1 + >> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_eswitch.c | 85 +++++++++--- >> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_eswitch.h | 22 +++- >> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_repr.c | 124 +++++++++++------- >> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_repr.h | 21 ++- >> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_sriov.c | 4 +- >> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_vf_lib.c | 4 +- >> > 8 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-) >> >> This calls for a split to at least 2 patches. One patch to prepare and >> one to add the SF support? > >Is 187 insertions and 80 deletions too many for one patch? Or the >problem is with number of files changed?
The patch is hard to follow, that's the problem. > >I don't see what here can be moved to preparation part as most changes >depends on each other. Do you want me to have one patch with unused >functions that are adding/removing SF repr and another with calling >them? > >Thanks, >Michal
