On 06/11/15 21:05, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 11:00:23 +0100
The kfree() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Si
On 11/08/2015 10:30 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
This patchset enables EEH on SRIOV VFs. The general idea is to create proper
VF edev and VF PE and handle them properly.
Different from the Bus PE, VF PE just contain one VF. This introduces the
difference of EEH error handling on a VF PE. Generally, it ha
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 10:53:17AM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>On 11/08/2015 10:30 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
>>This patchset enables EEH on SRIOV VFs. The general idea is to create proper
>>VF edev and VF PE and handle them properly.
>>
>>Different from the Bus PE, VF PE just contain one VF. This
Acked-by: Ian Munsie
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:12:00AM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
>This series of patches rebases on powerpc/next branch, plus below additional
>patches:
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/534804/ (PATCH[1/1] Andrew's EEH fix)
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/534154/ (PATCH[7/7] Richard's
On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 08:24:37PM -0800, Pramod Sudheendra wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:12:00AM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>> This series of patches rebases on powerpc/next branch, plus below additional
>>> patches:
>>>
>>> https://patchwo
> On Nov 8, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 12:12:00AM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> This series of patches rebases on powerpc/next branch, plus below additional
>> patches:
>>
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/534804/ (PATCH[1/1] Andrew's EEH fix)
>> https
On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 15:29 +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
>
> Yeah, I dropped that before it's populated completely as I was told
> it's disallowed
> by my employer. I have to push it into IBM internal git server and
> it's only visible
> to IBM. Sorry for the inconvienence...
I think that's a misinte
On 06/11/15 10:43, Michael Ellerman wrote:
If it's unused *and* broken then we should just remove it.
Following some discussion with Ian and Vaibhav, we'd like to keep it at
this stage - while there are no current AFUs which write to AFU config
space, it would be reasonable for an AFU develop
