Re: [PATCH] please include in 2.6.18: e100 disable device on PCI error

[Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:01:22 -0500
> linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please apply the following one-liner patch to  
> > what will become the stable 2.6.18.  This patch is 
> > low-risk because it affects only the PCI error 
> > recovery code, which dosn't run on most platforms
> > (in particular, isn't invoked on current x86/ia64).
> >
> > This patch was originally sent on 29 June 2006
> > to fix a bug that showed up in an -mm build.
> > The code from -mm made it into mainline, but 
> > this patch did not, and so we're unhappy. :-(
> >
> > Here's the original patch description:
> >
> > A recent patch in -mm3 titled 
> > gregkh-pci-pci-don-t-enable-device-if-already-enabled.patch
> > causes pci_enable_device() to be a no-op if the kernel thinks
> > that the device is already enabled.  This change breaks the
> > PCI error recovery mechanism in the e100 device driver, since, 
> > after PCI slot reset, the card is no longer enabled. This is 
> > a trivial fix for this problem. Tested.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Linas Vepstas <linas@austin.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>
> >
> > ----
> >  drivers/net/e100.c |    1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6.18-rc7-git1/drivers/net/e100.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.18-rc7-git1.orig/drivers/net/e100.c	2006-09-18 14:21:49.000000000 -0500
> > +++ linux-2.6.18-rc7-git1/drivers/net/e100.c	2006-09-18 14:24:50.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -2799,6 +2799,7 @@ static pci_ers_result_t e100_io_error_de
> >  	/* Detach; put netif into state similar to hotplug unplug. */
> >  	netif_poll_enable(netdev);
> >  	netif_device_detach(netdev);
> > +	pci_disable_device(pdev);
> >  
> >  	/* Request a slot reset. */
> >  	return PCI_ERS_RESULT_NEED_RESET;
>
> hm.  I don't have this patch queued, but I _do_ have an equivalent patch
> for e1000 queued; what's up with that?  Nobody seems to have paid much
> attention to the e1000 fix.
>
> If we can gather the appropriate acks quickly then I expect we can get both
> of these into 2.6.18.

Ack! for both, of course.

I'm unsure what happened here, as I have this patch in my local tree. I suspect 
that it got merged into jeff's #upstream only somehow.

Auke

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/