Jeff Garzik wrote:
quoted text
> akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
>> From: Christopher Li <chrisl@vmware.com>
>> 
>> Andrey reports e1000 corruption, and that a patch in vmware's ESX
>> fixed it. 
>> 
>> The EEPROM corruption is triggered by concurrent access of the EEPROM
>> read/write. Putting a lock around it solve the problem.
>> 
>> [akpm@linux-foundation.org: use DEFINE_SPINLOCK to avoid confusing
>> lockdep] Signed-off-by: Christopher Li <chrisl@vmware.com>
>> Reported-by: Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>
>> Cc: Zach Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
>> Cc: Pratap Subrahmanyam <pratap@vmware.com>
>> Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
>> Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
>> Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@intel.com>
>> Cc: PJ Waskiewicz <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com>
>> Cc: John Ronciak <john.ronciak@intel.com>
>> Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> ---
>> 
>>  drivers/net/e1000/e1000_hw.c |   23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> 
> No further reply from Intel to my ping, and this regression needs to
> be addressed, so, applied.

My apologies Jeff.  I know it is late, but to close the loop, I agree
this is okay, in at least I don't believe it will harm anything, other
than adding un-necessary bloat at the worst.

Acked-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html