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(+)
diff -puN drivers/net/e1000/e1000_hw.c~e1000e-prevent-corruption-of-eeprom-nvm drivers/net/e1000/e1000_hw.c

--- a/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_hw.c~e1000e-prevent-corruption-of-eeprom-nvm

+++ a/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_hw.c

@@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ static s32 e1000_host_if_read_cookie(str

 static u8 e1000_calculate_mng_checksum(char *buffer, u32 length);

 static s32 e1000_configure_kmrn_for_10_100(struct e1000_hw *hw, u16 duplex);

 static s32 e1000_configure_kmrn_for_1000(struct e1000_hw *hw);

+static s32 e1000_do_read_eeprom(struct e1000_hw *hw, u16 offset, u16 words, u16 *data);

+static s32 e1000_do_write_eeprom(struct e1000_hw *hw, u16 offset, u16 words, u16 *data);
 /* IGP cable length table */

 static const

@@ -168,6 +170,8 @@ u16 e1000_igp_2_cable_length_table[IGP02

       83, 89, 95, 100, 105, 109, 113, 116, 119, 122, 124,

       104, 109, 114, 118, 121, 124};
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(e1000_eeprom_lock);

+

 /******************************************************************************

  * Se...
[ message continues ]

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>

--