From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755392AbbJIBWj (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 21:22:39 -0400 Received: from shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk ([88.96.1.126]:36083 "EHLO shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752597AbbJIBWh (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 21:22:37 -0400 Message-ID: <1444353743.2956.285.camel@decadent.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 035/107] PCI: Add dev_flags bit to access VPD through function 0 From: Ben Hutchings To: "Rustad, Mark D" Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , Alexander Duyck , Bjorn Helgaas Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 02:22:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5EFB152F-E0F5-43D8-B1E1-7EB7FADA94C7@intel.com> References: <5EFB152F-E0F5-43D8-B1E1-7EB7FADA94C7@intel.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-RlY4PR2SBzPDVoYRlX1Y" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.168.4.247 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ben@decadent.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shadbolt.decadent.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-RlY4PR2SBzPDVoYRlX1Y Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 00:26 +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote: > Ben Hutchings wrote: >=20 > > --- a/include/linux/pci.h > > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h > > @@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ enum pci_dev_flags { > > > > PCI_DEV_FLAGS_NO_D3 =3D (__force pci_dev_flags_t) 2, > > > > /* Provide indication device is assigned by a Virtual Machine Mana= ger */ > > > > PCI_DEV_FLAGS_ASSIGNED =3D (__force pci_dev_flags_t) 4, > > +> > > > /* Get VPD from function 0 VPD */ > > +> > > > PCI_DEV_FLAGS_VPD_REF_F0 =3D (__force pci_dev_flags_t) (1 << = 8), > > }; > >=20 > > enum pci_irq_reroute_variant { >=20 > In this hunk I happened to notice the change in how these values are > assigned. Should the new value remain (1 << 8) or should it fall in > line with the older implementation and simply be 8? Or should it be > 256? It depends on which kind of consistency you prefer for the > backport. They're bit masks, not bit numbers, both in 3.2 and upstream. In mainline, bits 3-7 have already been assigned to other flags. I don't see the need to renumber or write the value differently when backporting. Ben. --=20 Ben Hutchings If the facts do not conform to your theory, they must be disposed of. --=-RlY4PR2SBzPDVoYRlX1Y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIVAwUAVhcWz+e/yOyVhhEJAQrXww/+IwpAS+3zuobUBPNKihT7DsHzE7dqLfKY C+gwVIoKnSQYQpH8TeegVIimV1L5JPdL2BVFqRG3uByql7TPnp5sh+QeHiUafqcP foOg8QelUierltOvnxg/vIbjXDSVWq+MeBck+rdFiELctGyEe95SD+SMSXC76WpT giWQKDQDEbPdSG8R2Nw/dkjwlYPSMzvWIzKPHViSOWY4h4heixukuireciIe+Fe7 NV0ADlW2etopKdSep7bJQFsDekfWX39iZ0HdIgYWqXMKpbY2+pifLJXUpTOJVl8v cxUwL9Z1A+DQns2LOWFmW5ww1Zy0huAxkPK7EjTlleqmfC33lYxuu4KSCHuqkHDt bMIv3vFK4JzDowRhfLzKWv1u7nmnuNicDIZ53dGXlp5s44hIz6topD+ZS4P2Wzf5 dK5q/Ggx+x0kGSAvtL3TH1MWEx3PCV5VvVoIi+XkhtTlcF0zf/5qQnfR5itnsC5I Sp9M+oPz/84yuUlDwahpAjDxnWIKTMNi30boknJl5TMWsh+qwIR25LDV2efvNz0X H6u5mZQ+VB5X+vdXalUy3FsrJaG39crQabvnqH2/HOhnz9SJGCWOuUUGP+N5aS4X s/l7Di6fdtWgihiyXWnuc+ej4NOvdj9dvPAOYQ5UMZxcvslH3AbhfelL61vCypFf UQAEdE1CSIA= =rWOx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-RlY4PR2SBzPDVoYRlX1Y--