mbox series

[v1,0/2] PCI: hotplug: Add checks to avoid doing hotplug on PCIe Upstream Ports

Message ID 5623410.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher
Headers
Series PCI: hotplug: Add checks to avoid doing hotplug on PCIe Upstream Ports |

Message

Rafael J. Wysocki Nov. 21, 2022, 6:13 p.m. UTC 
  Hi All,

PCIe Upstream Ports are not hotplug-capable by definition, but it turns out
that in some cases, if the system is configured in a particularly interesting
way, the kernel may be made attempt to operate an Upstream Port as a hotplug
one which causes functional issues to appear.

The following 2 patches amend the code to prevent this behavior from occurring.

Thanks!

Comments

Bjorn Helgaas Nov. 22, 2022, 6:06 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 07:13:15PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> PCIe Upstream Ports are not hotplug-capable by definition, but it turns out
> that in some cases, if the system is configured in a particularly interesting
> way, the kernel may be made attempt to operate an Upstream Port as a hotplug
> one which causes functional issues to appear.
> 
> The following 2 patches amend the code to prevent this behavior from occurring.

Thanks, applied to pci/hotplug for v6.2.  Lukas, I didn't presume to
convert your LGTM to Reviewed-by, but would be happy add it.

Bjorn
Lukas Wunner Nov. 22, 2022, 6:34 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:06:03PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 07:13:15PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > PCIe Upstream Ports are not hotplug-capable by definition, but it turns out
> > that in some cases, if the system is configured in a particularly interesting
> > way, the kernel may be made attempt to operate an Upstream Port as a hotplug
> > one which causes functional issues to appear.
> > 
> > The following 2 patches amend the code to prevent this behavior from occurring.
> 
> Thanks, applied to pci/hotplug for v6.2.  Lukas, I didn't presume to
> convert your LGTM to Reviewed-by, but would be happy add it.

I figured that having both a Suggested-by and a Reviewed-by might
look odd, hence went with the more neutral LGTM.  But I see it was
ambiguous.  Either way is fine for me. :)

Thanks,

Lukas