On 02/08/2010 10:29 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > 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. ok to me. it includes dev null checking in that function. Yinghai -- 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
