On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:01:41 -0700 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:24:51AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > Any update on this one Yinghai or Matthew? I agree with Matthew's > > cleanup, the no dev check should probably be in scan_slot rather > > than each potential callee. > > Here's what I came up with. I decided to put the check in both to be > robust against the case where the ARI capability is incorrect and > tells us about a device that doesn't exist. > > --- > > Make pci_scan_slot more robust > > Yinghai pointed out that the new pci_scan_slot() crashes when called > on an ARI-capable slot that is empty. Fix this by exiting early from > pci_scan_slot if there is no device in the slot. > > Also make next_ari_func() robust against devices not existing in case > the ARI capability is corrupt. ARI also requires that the devices be > listed in order, so if we find a function listed that is out of order, > stop scanning to prevent loops. Applied this one, thanks. Yinghai, let me know if things still fail for you and we can replace this patch. Thanks, -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
