+ Alex > On Jun 5, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Rustad, Mark D <mark.d.rus...@intel.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 3, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Mark D Rustad <mark.d.rus...@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.rus...@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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
