On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:49 AM, ethan.zhao wrote:
> Though no specification about NumVFs register initial value after POST, to
> void the confusion
> lspci output as following before VF was enabled, we should clear the NumVFs
> value left by BIOS
> to zero:
>
> $lspci -vvv -s 03:00.0
> Ethernet
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:49 AM, ethan.zhao ethan.ker...@gmail.com wrote:
Though no specification about NumVFs register initial value after POST, to
void the confusion
lspci output as following before VF was enabled, we should clear the NumVFs
value left by BIOS
to zero:
$lspci -vvv -s
Bjorn,
I revised the description part with the original bug material as
below, help to take a look, will send V2 back to home, SMTP blocked by
company network.
PCI: Init NumVFs register to zero in sriov_init()
Though no specification about NumVFs register initial value after
POST, to
Bjorn,
To be honest, the output above is picked up from other guy's mail,
because I composed the patch mail at home and left the real bug
material at company, they 'really' hit an issue confused by lspci
output while SR-IOV is initialized to disabled .
There is an error in above output as
Bjorn,
To be honest, the output above is picked up from other guy's mail,
because I composed the patch mail at home and left the real bug
material at company, they 'really' hit an issue confused by lspci
output while SR-IOV is initialized to disabled .
There is an error in above output as
Bjorn,
I revised the description part with the original bug material as
below, help to take a look, will send V2 back to home, SMTP blocked by
company network.
PCI: Init NumVFs register to zero in sriov_init()
Though no specification about NumVFs register initial value after
POST, to
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Ethan Zhao wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, ethan.zhao wrote:
>>> Though no specification about NumVFs register initial value after POST, to
>>> void the confusion
>>> lspci output as following
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Ethan Zhao ethan.ker...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, ethan.zhao ethan.ker...@gmail.com wrote:
Though no specification about NumVFs register initial value after POST, to
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Ethan Zhao wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, ethan.zhao wrote:
>> Though no specification about NumVFs register initial value after POST, to
>> void the confusion
>> lspci output as following before VF was enabled, we should clear the NumVFs
>> value
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Ethan Zhao ethan.ker...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, ethan.zhao ethan.ker...@gmail.com wrote:
Though no specification about NumVFs register initial value after POST, to
void the confusion
lspci output as following before VF was enabled, we
Yinghai,
Could you help to take a look, we need it in our downstream kernel.
Thanks,
Ethan
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, ethan.zhao wrote:
> Though no specification about NumVFs register initial value after POST, to
> void the confusion
> lspci output as following before VF was
Yinghai,
Could you help to take a look, we need it in our downstream kernel.
Thanks,
Ethan
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, ethan.zhao ethan.ker...@gmail.com wrote:
Though no specification about NumVFs register initial value after POST, to
void the confusion
lspci output as following
12 matches
Mail list logo
