Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:31:20PM -0500, Brian King wrote:
>>+void pci_block_user_cfg_access(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>+{
>>+	pci_save_state(dev);
>>+	dev->block_ucfg_access = 1;
>>+	mb();
>>+	while (spin_is_locked(&pci_lock))
>>+		cpu_relax();
>>+}
>>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_block_user_cfg_access);
>>+
>>+/**
>>+ * pci_unblock_user_cfg_access - Unblock userspace PCI config reads/writes
>>+ * @dev:	pci device struct
>>+ *
>>+ * This function allows userspace PCI config accesses to resume.
>>+ **/
>>+void pci_unblock_user_cfg_access(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>+{
>>+	dev->block_ucfg_access = 0;
>>+}
> 
> 
> Shouldn't pci_unblock_user_cfg_access() have a similar construct
> as pci_block_user_cfg_access()?
> 
> I'm thinking we don't want to pull the rug out from under someone
> who is accessing the saved state, right?
> Or does something else guarantee that?
> 
> It wasn't obvious from this diff alone.

Sounds reasonable enough. Updated patch attached.

-- 
Brian King
eServer Storage I/O
IBM Linux Technology Center