From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [net-next patch v2] bnx2x: Add run-time CNIC support Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20120710.060616.2081630953053267615.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1341923634.27035.6.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> <20120710.053724.1002197670026212780.davem@davemloft.net> <1341924089.27035.7.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: meravs@broadcom.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, dmitry@broadcom.com To: eilong@broadcom.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:37400 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752880Ab2GJNGS (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:06:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1341924089.27035.7.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: "Eilon Greenstein" Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:41:29 +0300 > OK. Since it blocks the ability to add SR-IOV support, is it acceptable > to submit it as constant enabled for PF and disabled for VF (SR-IOV)? You're not describing to me why you guys are turning on features like the CNIC mode before you necessarily have any users of that feature. Why can't you turn CNIC off at the start, and if a CNIC user actually arrives and is activated, reset the entire chip and put it into CNIC mode? And if CNIC being on is such a latency killer, why in the world haven't you done things more reasonably like that from the very beginning? Why are you making it so that lower latency with your chips is only available to a group of users who are effectively statistically insignificant?