From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 082D01A001D for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:58:50 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from e23smtp03.au.ibm.com (e23smtp03.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9916140C31 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:58:49 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost by e23smtp03.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 09:58:47 +1000 Received: from d23relay10.au.ibm.com (d23relay10.au.ibm.com [9.190.26.77]) by d23dlp02.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C652BB004D for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:58:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (d23av01.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.96]) by d23relay10.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u18NwXJV60031214 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:58:41 +1100 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u18Nw8Wd022069 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:58:08 +1100 Subject: Re: powerpc/eeh: eeh_pci_enable(): fix checking of post-request state To: Michael Ellerman , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org References: <20160208113706.12246140B99@ozlabs.org> Cc: Gavin Shan , Daniel Axtens From: Andrew Donnellan Message-ID: <56B92B74.8040108@au1.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:57:40 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160208113706.12246140B99@ozlabs.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 08/02/16 22:37, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Looks like I missed this? > > Should it still go in? Is it a fix? If so when did it break, and should it go > to stable? It is a fix - I'm a bit hazy on the details now but IIRC, Daniel Axtens and I encountered this when doing some cxl debugging, though I think we decided not to tag this for stable since it was a secondary issue to the primary bug we were looking for. It probably could go to stable though? (Daniel - thoughts?) The line in question was last touched in 4d4f577e4b5e, but it looks like the behaviour wasn't right even before that. Andrew -- Andrew Donnellan Software Engineer, OzLabs andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com Australia Development Lab, Canberra +61 2 6201 8874 (work) IBM Australia Limited