Re: [PATCH V3 0/2] pci: Provide a flag to access VPD through function 0

["Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1701 bytes --]

+ Alex

> On Jun 5, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Rustad, Mark D <mark.d.rustad@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 3, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Mark D Rustad <mark.d.rustad@intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Many multi-function devices provide shared registers in extended
>> config space for accessing VPD. The behavior of these registers
>> means that the state must be tracked and access locked correctly
>> for accesses not to hang or worse. One way to meet these needs is
>> to always perform the accesses through function 0, thereby using
>> the state tracking and mutex that already exists.
>> 
>> To provide this behavior, add a dev_flags bit to indicate that this
>> should be done. This bit can then be set for any non-zero function
>> that needs to redirect such VPD access to function 0. Do not set
>> this bit on the zero function or there will be an infinite recursion.
>> 
>> The second patch uses this new flag to invoke this behavior on all
>> multi-function Intel Ethernet devices.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@intel.com>
>> 
>> ---
>> Changes in V2:
>> - Corrected a spelling error in a log message
>> - Added checks to see that the referenced function 0 is reasonable
>> Changes in V3:
>> - Don't leak a device reference
>> - Check that function 0 has VPD
>> - Make a helper for the function 0 checks
>> - Moved a multifunction check to the quirk patch
> 
> So does this series look acceptable now? I think I addressed the issues that Alex raised. Can these also be considered for -stable?

More than a week has passed without any comment. Is this going to be accepted or is there still an issue?

--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 841 bytes --]