On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:19:14AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Wei Yang <weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 06:19:26PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>>On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 03:01:43PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: > >>>> + vf_num = pdn->vf_pes; >>> >>>I can't actually build this, but I don't think pdn->vf_pes is defined yet. >>> >> >> The pdn->vf_pes is defined in the next patch, it is not defined yet. >> >> I thought the incremental patch means a patch on top of the current patch set, >> so it is defined as the last patch. > >Yes, that's fine. I want to keep the series bisectable, so I'll fold >these patches together. > >>>I pushed an updated pci/virtualization branch with these updates. I >>>think there's also a leak that needs to be fixed that Dan Carpenter >>>pointed out. > >>>+ vf_num = pdn->vf_pes; // FIXME not defined yet >> >> Do you want me poll your pci/virtualization branch and fix this? > >Don't worry about this FIXME; I can fix that by squashing two patches. >But please do pull my pci/virtualization branch and fix this one (this >is the one that I thought Dan Carpenter pointed out): > > drivers/pci/iov.c:488 sriov_init() warn: possible memory leak of 'iov' Sure, let me take a look. -- Richard Yang Help you, Help me -- 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
