[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <144fbab5-0cd6-478a-9500-838cd6303a73@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 09:40:16 +0100
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: "Temerkhanov, Sergey" <sergey.temerkhanov@...el.com>, Jiri Pirko
<jiri@...nulli.us>
CC: "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
"Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, "Loktionov, Aleksandr"
<aleksandr.loktionov@...el.com>, "Kolacinski, Karol"
<karol.kolacinski@...el.com>, "Nitka, Grzegorz" <grzegorz.nitka@...el.com>,
"Schmidt, Michal" <mschmidt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next] ice: use DSN instead of PCI BDF for ice_adapter
index
> Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next] ice: use DSN instead of PCI BDF for ice_adapter index
regarding -net vs -next, no one have complained that this bug hurts
>> + return (unsigned long)pci_get_dsn(pdev);
>
>> How do you ensure there is no xarray index collision then you cut the number like this?
The reduction occurs only on "32b" systems, which are unlikely to have
this device. And any mixing of the upper and lower 4B part still could
collide.
>
> It is also probably necessary to check if all devices supported by the driver have DSN capability enabled.
I will double check on the SoC you have in mind.
>
> Regards,
> Sergey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists