On 18.10.2024 22:39, Stewart Hildebrand wrote: > Add links between a VF's struct pci_dev and its associated PF struct > pci_dev. Move the calls to pci_get_pdev()/pci_add_device() down to avoid > dropping and re-acquiring the pcidevs_lock(). > > During PF removal, unlink VF from PF and mark the VF broken. As before, > VFs may exist without a corresponding PF, although now only with > pdev->broken = true. > > The hardware domain is expected to remove the associated VFs before > removing the PF. Print a warning in case a PF is removed with associated > VFs still present. > > Signed-off-by: Stewart Hildebrand <stewart.hildebr...@amd.com> > --- > Candidate for backport to 4.19 (the next patch depends on this one) > > v5->v6: > * move printk() before ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() > * warn about PF removal with VFs still present
Hmm, maybe I didn't make this clear enough when commenting on v5: I wasn't just after an adjustment to the commit message. I'm instead actively concerned of the resulting behavior. Question is whether we can reasonably do something about that. Jan
