On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 08:19:14AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Wei Yang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 06:19:26PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 03:01:43PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+    vf_num = pdn->vf_pes;

I can't actually build this, but I don't think pdn->vf_pes is defined yet.

The pdn->vf_pes is defined in the next patch, it is not defined yet.

I thought the incremental patch means a patch on top of the current patch set,
so it is defined as the last patch.

Yes, that's fine.  I want to keep the series bisectable, so I'll fold
these patches together.

quoted

quoted

I pushed an updated pci/virtualization branch with these updates.  I
think there's also a leak that needs to be fixed that Dan Carpenter
pointed out.

quoted

quoted

+      vf_num = pdn->vf_pes;           // FIXME not defined yet

Do you want me poll your pci/virtualization branch and fix this?

Don't worry about this FIXME; I can fix that by squashing two patches.
But please do pull my pci/virtualization branch and fix this one (this
is the one that I thought Dan Carpenter pointed out):

 drivers/pci/iov.c:488 sriov_init() warn: possible memory leak of 'iov'

Sure, let me take a look.

-- 
Richard Yang
Help you, Help me