Re: [PATCH mlx5-next v1 06/11] vdpa/mlx5: Connect mlx5_vdpa to auxiliary bus

[Dan Williams]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 11:32 PM gregkh <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 03:21:23PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:45 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [..]
> > > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(auxiliary, mlx5v_id_table);
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct auxiliary_driver mlx5v_driver = {
> > > > +     .name = "vnet",
> > > > +     .probe = mlx5v_probe,
> > > > +     .remove = mlx5v_remove,
> > > > +     .id_table = mlx5v_id_table,
> > > > +};
> > >
> > > It is hard to see from the diff, but when this patch is applied the
> > > vdpa module looks like I imagined things would look with the auxiliary
> > > bus. It is very similar in structure to a PCI driver with the probe()
> > > function cleanly registering with its subsystem. This is what I'd like
> > > to see from the new Intel RDMA driver.
> > >
> > > Greg, I think this patch is the best clean usage example.
> > >
> > > I've looked over this series and it has the right idea and
> > > parts. There is definitely more that can be done to improve mlx5 in
> > > this area, but this series is well scoped and cleans a good part of
> > > it.
> >
> > Greg?
> >
> > I know you alluded to going your own way if the auxiliary bus patches
> > did not shape up soon, but it seems they have and the stakeholders
> > have reached this consensus point.
> >
> > Were there any additional changes you wanted to see happen? I'll go
> > give the final set another once over, but David has been diligently
> > fixing up all the declared major issues so I expect to find at most
> > minor incremental fixups.
>
> This is in my to-review pile, along with a load of other stuff at the
> moment:
>         $ ~/bin/mdfrm -c ~/mail/todo/
>         1709 messages in /home/gregkh/mail/todo/
>
> So give me a chance.  There is no rush on my side for this given the
> huge delays that have happened here on the authorship side many times in
> the past :)

Sure, I was more looking to confirm that it's worth continuing to
polish this set given your mention of possibly going a different
direction.

> If you can review it, or anyone else, that is always most appreciated.

Thanks, will do.