Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfio tree got a conflict in:
arch/s390/pci/pci_bus.c
between commit:
abb95b7550f8 ("s390/pci: consolidate SR-IOV specific code")
from the s390 tree and commit:
08b6e22b850c ("s390/pci: Mark all VFs as not implementing PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY")
from the vfio tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc arch/s390/pci/pci_bus.c
index 0c0db7c3a404,c93486a9989b..000000000000
--- a/arch/s390/pci/pci_bus.c
+++ b/arch/s390/pci/pci_bus.c
@@@ -135,9 -197,10 +135,10 @@@ void pcibios_bus_add_device(struct pci_
* With pdev->no_vf_scan the common PCI probing code does not
* perform PF/VF linking.
*/
- if (zdev->vfn)
+ if (zdev->vfn) {
- zpci_bus_setup_virtfn(zdev->zbus, pdev, zdev->vfn);
+ zpci_iov_setup_virtfn(zdev->zbus, pdev, zdev->vfn);
-
+ pdev->no_command_memory = 1;
+ }
}
static int zpci_bus_add_device(struct zpci_bus *zbus, struct zpci_dev *zdev)
Hi Stephen,
first thanks for the manual fix it's exactly the same resolution I would
have used. Sorry this conflict ended up on your desk without warning,
I had made Vasily and Heiko aware of this as an upcoming conflict but failed
to alert Alex who finally ended up carrying the change so I this is my fault.
Best regards,
Niklas Schnelle
On 9/24/20 6:26 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfio tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/s390/pci/pci_bus.c
>
> between commit:
>
> abb95b7550f8 ("s390/pci: consolidate SR-IOV specific code")
>
> from the s390 tree and commit:
>
> 08b6e22b850c ("s390/pci: Mark all VFs as not implementing PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY")
>
> from the vfio tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>