[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070625224937.502d46a0.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:49:37 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, gregkh@...e.de,
muli@...ibm.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: [Intel IOMMU 02/10] PCI generic helper function
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:37:03 -0700 "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com> wrote:
> +struct pci_dev *
> +pci_find_upstream_pcie_bridge(struct pci_dev *pdev)
You didn't need a newline there, but that's what the rest of that file
does. Hu hum.
> +{
> + struct pci_dev *tmp = NULL;
> +
> + if (pdev->is_pcie)
> + return NULL;
> + while (1) {
> + if (!pdev->bus->self)
> + break;
> + pdev = pdev->bus->self;
> + /* a p2p bridge */
> + if (!pdev->is_pcie) {
> + tmp = pdev;
> + continue;
> + }
> + /* PCI device should connect to a PCIE bridge */
> + BUG_ON(pdev->pcie_type != PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE);
I assume that if this bug triggers, we've found some broken hardware?
Going BUG seems like a pretty rude reaction to this, especially when it
would be so easy to drop a warning and then recover.
How's about this?
--- a/drivers/pci/search.c~intel-iommu-pci-generic-helper-function-fix
+++ a/drivers/pci/search.c
@@ -38,7 +38,11 @@ pci_find_upstream_pcie_bridge(struct pci
continue;
}
/* PCI device should connect to a PCIE bridge */
- BUG_ON(pdev->pcie_type != PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE);
+ if (pdev->pcie_type != PCI_EXP_TYPE_PCI_BRIDGE) {
+ /* Busted hardware? */
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
+ return NULL;
+ }
return pdev;
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists