From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:40986 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753449AbbFQQ3i (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:29:38 -0400 From: "Rustad, Mark D" To: "Rustad, Mark D" CC: "bhelgaas@google.com" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/2] pci: Provide a flag to access VPD through function 0 Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:29:14 +0000 Message-ID: <45099CC7-DDAB-41D9-AB74-5A81E2AAF64C@intel.com> References: <20150603184445.109080.36387.stgit@mdrustad-wks.jf.intel.com> <051B68B4-3E77-4EB0-B9FE-8523631884A2@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <051B68B4-3E77-4EB0-B9FE-8523631884A2@intel.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_933DBC4A-33F1-459A-87A3-C3AAF3D93F76"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --Apple-Mail=_933DBC4A-33F1-459A-87A3-C3AAF3D93F76 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii + Alex > On Jun 5, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Rustad, Mark D = wrote: >=20 >> On Jun 3, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Mark D Rustad = wrote: >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> The second patch uses this new flag to invoke this behavior on all >> multi-function Intel Ethernet devices. >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad >>=20 >> --- >> 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 >=20 > 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 --Apple-Mail=_933DBC4A-33F1-459A-87A3-C3AAF3D93F76 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVgaBZAAoJEDwO/+eO4+5uGukQAKOK+W+hOnYngKpbDANNutZn jAJIdQ9+tnf+bShEU5F+hNEtmmj4nSw6OCvHrI+34TgBlMJxcrF2hfV5TAebmIZX rd4dbz1Xjw7tU49XJKj7CNq2vKELiezlqDJCbi9p+0q+/xDRDfwNzYNv2BsgW3zQ bGtfV3WvYnKQ26A9FKmAK+fe9SQKt+P/AipRilsGlt9xIQljZrsXm6RUuFyqpURn 2AAlYF5cIqehVSPi8igRj8OI3RrfHqImgOtEMuJHXLhuHq8hNjC26Gw6X8r9N/U0 ooz4fSQC/fcpzFtsxMuhasNWhoxquVBbPSmFKhQf70t44WHmyy8pIxkZYVmyrYIv u1fCQAa+Ot2BrQ5/v0FLTCMnJzurdkL0yTJC8VzLwzQGC0OCQ+K2d4VkKp5mOakN wUkBdQsYNbMH5Bwi+0VMQxhleYo3t7se8Rin89dyZQnLZLYjBav0lQU4j0oPrfh5 xEYQ2Iy+H4B+Bka5CR5kwbeAYoTy6kW9Hqf38FpVgSV2A2D7tir2lNpVnbjz8XZg q1hhcYqmkJTk2eIa+d670JNE1Y1O+tCMeFDOEW0xziD2e9aJdk4uTxn1RrahB0UN 6cNepkGeiqaDVyWJwrmOrqlv8g5L0WIc87lIY/x5mWV87+7/1GIu0Z29jN3kr58p KkCsxWobnNpZCFkkDdS9 =33l1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_933DBC4A-33F1-459A-87A3-C3AAF3D93F76--