[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net] ice: Protect vf_state check by cfg_lock in ice_vc_process_vf_msg()

[Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>]

On 4/15/2022 11:31 AM, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:39 AM
>> To: Fijalkowski, Maciej <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
>> Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org; Fei Liu <feliu@redhat.com>; moderated list:INTEL
>> ETHERNET DRIVERS <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>; mschmidt
>> <mschmidt@redhat.com>; Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@intel.com>; open list
>> <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>; Paolo Abeni
>> <pabeni@redhat.com>; David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net] ice: Protect vf_state check by cfg_lock in
>> ice_vc_process_vf_msg()
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:55:02 +0200
>> Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:22:59AM +0200, Ivan Vecera wrote:
>>>> Previous patch labelled "ice: Fix incorrect locking in
>>>> ice_vc_process_vf_msg()"  fixed an issue with ignored messages
>>> tiny tiny nit: double space after "
>>> Also, has mentioned patch landed onto some tree so that we could provide
>>> SHA-1 of it? If not, then maybe squashing this one with the mentioned one
>>> would make sense?
>> Well, that commit were already tested and now it is present in Tony's queue
>> but not in upstream yet. It is not problem to squash together but the first
>> was about ignored VF messages and this one is about race and I didn't want
>> to make single patch with huge description that cover both issues.
>> But as I said, no problem to squash if needed.
>>
>> Thx,
>> Ivan
> I'm fine with either squashing or keeping them as separate changes.

Either way sounds ok to me as they are different types of changes.

Thanks,

Tony