Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 08/19] pds_core: initial VF configuration

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 18:02:50 -0800

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:57:25 -0800 Shannon Nelson wrote:
> >> Yes, a PF representor simply so we can get access to the .ndo_set_vf_xxx
> >> interfaces.  There is no network traffic running through the PF.  
> > 
> > In that case not only have you come up with your own name for
> > a SmartNIC, you also managed to misuse one of our existing terms
> > in your own way! It can't pass any traffic it's just a dummy to hook
> > the legacy vf ndos to. It's the opposite of what a repr is.  
> 
> Sorry, this seemed to me an reasonable use of the term.  Is there an 
> alternative wording we should use for this case?
> 
> Are there other existing methods we can use for getting the VF 
> configurations from the user, or does this make sense to keep in our 
> current simple model?

Enough back and forth. I'm not going to come up with a special model
just for you when a model already exists, and you present no technical
argument against it.

I am against merging your code, if you want to override find other
vendors and senior upstream reviewers who will side with you.