On 02.02.2022 10:38, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 02.02.22 11:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 02.02.2022 09:44, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 06:25:07PM +0200, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com>
>> Oleksandr, can you please clarify authorship here? The rule of thumb is
>> that From: matches ...
>>
>>>> Shrink critical section in vpci_{read/write} as racing calls to
>>>> vpci_{read,write}_hw() shouldn't be a problem. Those are just wrappers
>>>> around pci_conf_{read,write} functions, and the required locking (in
>>>> case of using the IO ports) is already taken care in pci_conf_{read,write}.
>>>>
>>>> Please note, that we anyways split 64bit writes into two 32bit ones
>>>> without taking the lock for the whole duration of the access, so it is
>>>> possible to see a partially updated state as a result of a 64bit write:
>>>> the PCI(e) specification don't seem to specify whether the ECAM is allowed
>>>> to split memory transactions into multiple Configuration Requests and
>>>> whether those could then interleave with requests from a different CPU.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushche...@epam.com>
>> ... the first S-o-b, as these are expected to be in chronological
>> order.
> Well, I was not sure here: the idea and the original code belongs
> to Roger and it was a part of a dedicated other patch. So, technically,
> this patch didn't exist before and Roger hasn't created it (the patch).
> So, this is why I'm in doubt here: should I change the authorship
> to Roger's? I had no means to offend anyone here nor I pretend
> for the authorship in any form.My personal view on it is that if you've broken this out of a larger patch coming from Roger, then he should be named as the author. Jan
