On 9/12/2018 4:28 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 04:21:44PM -0500, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>> When a PCI device is gone, we don't want to send IO to it if we can
>> avoid it. We expose functionality via the irq_chip structure. As
>> users of that structure may not know about th
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 04:21:44PM -0500, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
> When a PCI device is gone, we don't want to send IO to it if we can
> avoid it. We expose functionality via the irq_chip structure. As
> users of that structure may not know about the underlying PCI device,
> it's our responsibili
Should I resubmit this rebased on 4.19-rc*, or just leave this patch as is?
Alex
On 07/30/2018 04:21 PM, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
When a PCI device is gone, we don't want to send IO to it if we can
avoid it. We expose functionality via the irq_chip structure. As
users of that structure may not
When a PCI device is gone, we don't want to send IO to it if we can
avoid it. We expose functionality via the irq_chip structure. As
users of that structure may not know about the underlying PCI device,
it's our responsibility to guard against removed devices.
irq_write_msi_msg is already guarded.
4 matches
Mail list logo