From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932823AbbJIA0V (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 20:26:21 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:2080 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932314AbbJIA0S (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2015 20:26:18 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,656,1437462000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="822745264" From: "Rustad, Mark D" To: Ben Hutchings CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , Alexander Duyck , Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 035/107] PCI: Add dev_flags bit to access VPD through function 0 Thread-Topic: [PATCH 3.2 035/107] PCI: Add dev_flags bit to access VPD through function 0 Thread-Index: AQHRAif5Wk4PG587g0Gmq/4uD0HAyJ5iw0EA Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 00:26:16 +0000 Message-ID: <5EFB152F-E0F5-43D8-B1E1-7EB7FADA94C7@intel.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [134.134.176.87] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_118C637B-46D5-427C-A755-EFE626D28532"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Apple-Mail=_118C637B-46D5-427C-A755-EFE626D28532 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Ben Hutchings wrote: > --- 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 = Manager */ > 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 { 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. -- Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation --Apple-Mail=_118C637B-46D5-427C-A755-EFE626D28532 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWFwmoAAoJEDwO/+eO4+5uxWsP/3lENetwnVL7DpqJkexkOtJt orzNS9nz0+60emmPBVnmXOFOM7RQuETHm8YgFopdpjuJx3TIVxU0iXLUIgWq5zSk KnIG1vRE8NaicZrDFwRkJYujSEhw+ZR4706c+x9P1f4uN87Hez0ZqyzeOthDYN5n ui8T+LPQPlmybMUDQDyEqpSuxTnNmAgWznyMXYdsHsalDnHM6LvQv0NPqUu7tcDo gXA979PNXG/UrPQMcsXfAOgu/1z/lMHVABpfq8MTiKyCfTEuoXiBS6b+/YSxioZu nMEtrgLeoUSsL48aIKRcE8LN0GAJYty3LvLw2qQMQPuhcUe+lIdFwiy5pNg42NGO 7yFYtliXlSJLAClKNkj0Gm7n4UFA978RwYGpZLaF6N5WA20mwfPXw+osMuh7W6hG 02dLv35TxgvMgQpsoCFCxZGPjqXzv4eTcKFz78AbeDAcqd0V1FQrL5AErDYamVdk 2KbDnPMSPMaLiuOeColcKGeo9uwbdFYg1vkXkiANTiqiwVV++7RO6TfD1HHQfZBu h6P9Jwqunc7UodBnso7QOaYGAig6ojwuUzBLXfa9mRMRqbySiRlqqpBMjwZ/PsA1 s/Ke0BIsCQph51qjMkfI6WCXxLaugsAs5cIF7TZDJoy1VSmMk+UyYAREZroP5WtU o1vtpu7/sdffXRtxx4S7 =hrPh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_118C637B-46D5-427C-A755-EFE626D28532--