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

[Tony Nguyen]

On 4/15/2022 11:31 AM, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > -----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.

Either way sounds ok to me as they are different types of changes.

Thanks,

Tony