Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:53:20 -0700 | Subject | Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net] ice: Protect vf_state check by cfg_lock in ice_vc_process_vf_msg() | From | Tony Nguyen <> |
| |
On 4/15/2022 11:31 AM, Keller, Jacob E wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com> >> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:39 AM >> To: Fijalkowski, Maciej <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> >> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; Fei Liu <feliu@redhat.com>; moderated list:INTEL >> ETHERNET DRIVERS <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>; mschmidt >> <mschmidt@redhat.com>; Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@intel.com>; open list >> <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>; Paolo Abeni >> <pabeni@redhat.com>; David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> >> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net] ice: Protect vf_state check by cfg_lock in >> ice_vc_process_vf_msg() >> >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:55:02 +0200 >> Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:22:59AM +0200, Ivan Vecera wrote: >>>> Previous patch labelled "ice: Fix incorrect locking in >>>> ice_vc_process_vf_msg()" fixed an issue with ignored messages >>> tiny tiny nit: double space after " >>> Also, has mentioned patch landed onto some tree so that we could provide >>> SHA-1 of it? If not, then maybe squashing this one with the mentioned one >>> would make sense? >> Well, that commit were already tested and now it is present in Tony's queue >> but not in upstream yet. It is not problem to squash together but the first >> was about ignored VF messages and this one is about race and I didn't want >> to make single patch with huge description that cover both issues. >> But as I said, no problem to squash if needed. >> >> Thx, >> Ivan > I'm fine with either squashing or keeping them as separate changes.
Either way sounds ok to me as they are different types of changes.
Thanks,
Tony
| |