netdev - Re: [PATCH] PCI: export pci_restore_msi

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071107220710.GK4239@austin.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Nov 2007 16:07:10 -0600
From:	linas@...tin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas)
To:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	mcarlson@...adcom.com, wenxiong@...ibm.com, mchan@...adcom.com,
	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: export pci_restore_msi_state()

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 03:43:59PM -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> 
> PCI error recovery usually involves the PCI adapter being reset.
> If the device is using MSI, the reset will cause the MSI state 
> to be lost; the device driver needs to restore the MSI state.
> 
> The pci_restore_msi_state() routine is currently protected
> by CONFIG_PM; remove this, and also export the symbol, so
> that it can be used in a modle.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Linas Vepstas <linas@...tin.ibm.com>

The long time delay has managed to muddle notes & recollection 
of prior discussions. This patch should have had a 

Signed-off-by: Matt Carlson <mcarlson@...adcom.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>

on it; its the same patch that was submitted a long time ago.

During the discussions of 21 Oct, it was proposed that there
should be an arch hook for pci_restore_msi_state(), so that
it would be treated at the same level as msi setup and teardown.
I'd volunteered to write that patch. 

When I sat down to do it, however, I realized that I did not
actually *need* it. And so I wondered: why am I writing un-needed,
but theoretically proper, code? So I punted, and I didn't.
Does that make sense?

That's also why this patch is just a resubmission of the old
patch. The original thread is here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg51296.html

--linas

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html