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

From: "Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@intel.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Cc: "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org"
	<intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/2] pci: Provide a flag to access VPD through function 0
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:04:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8CB0ECE7-CFE2-43CB-BA60-2E2E0A34D5D1@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAErSpo7e-QtQQTj2yh_jG07vqU1j1YBez_9wrcrzOQs7+eDFng@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2114 bytes --]

> On Jun 17, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Rustad, Mark D
> <mark.d.rustad@intel.com> wrote:
>> + 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?
> 
> Sorry, Mark, I've just been busy with other issues and haven't had a
> chance to look at this yet.

Is there any chance of this getting into this merge window?

--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation

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