RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net] ice: Protect vf_state check by cfg_lock in ice_vc_process_vf_msg()

[Keller, Jacob E]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 9:39 AM
> To: Fijalkowski, Maciej <maciej.fijalkowski@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Fei Liu <feliu@xxxxxxxxxx>; moderated list:INTEL
> ETHERNET DRIVERS <intel-wired-lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; mschmidt
> <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@xxxxxxxxx>; open list
> <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paolo Abeni
> <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>; David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net] ice: Protect vf_state check by cfg_lock in
> ice_vc_process_vf_msg()
> 
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 13:55:02 +0200
> Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:22:59AM +0200, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> > > Previous patch labelled "ice: Fix incorrect locking in
> > > ice_vc_process_vf_msg()"  fixed an issue with ignored messages
> >
> > tiny tiny nit: double space after "
> > Also, has mentioned patch landed onto some tree so that we could provide
> > SHA-1 of it? If not, then maybe squashing this one with the mentioned one
> > would make sense?
> 
> Well, that commit were already tested and now it is present in Tony's queue
> but not in upstream yet. It is not problem to squash together but the first
> was about ignored VF messages and this one is about race and I didn't want
> to make single patch with huge description that cover both issues.
> But as I said, no problem to squash if needed.
> 
> Thx,
> Ivan

I'm fine with either squashing or keeping them as separate changes.