On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 07:54:03AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 21.11.14 at 23:03, wrote:
> > I rewrote it a bit to be more in the style of pciback:
> >[...]
> > [v2: Removed the switch statement, moved it about]
>
> What you don't mention here is that you also removed the outer
> loop, yet
>>> On 21.11.14 at 23:03, wrote:
> I rewrote it a bit to be more in the style of pciback:
>[...]
> [v2: Removed the switch statement, moved it about]
What you don't mention here is that you also removed the outer
loop, yet that breaks functionality afaict: There can (and I suppose
normally will)
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:05:51PM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> When a PF driver unloads, it may find it necessary to leave the VFs
> around simply because of pciback having marked them as assigned to a
> guest. Utilize a suitable notification to let go of the VFs, thus
> allowing the PF to go back
