svn commit: r344132 - head/sys/dev/ixl

[Eric Joyner]

I thought the same thing that John wrote -- I only need re@ approval for
MFC's during the release process.

I know it's unusually fast to have an MFC period of 1 day, but this change
could fix a kernel panic when r344062 is MFC'd and doesn't result in a
functional change to the driver, so I didn't think there was a reason for
it to sit longer.

- Eric

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:28 AM John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 2/14/19 10:22 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> >> Author: erj
> >> Date: Thu Feb 14 18:02:37 2019
> >> New Revision: 344132
> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/344132
> >>
> >> Log:
> >>   ixl: Fix panic caused by bug exposed by r344062
> >>
> >>   Don't use a struct if_irq for IFLIB_INTR_IOV type interrupts since
> that results
> >>   in get_core_offset() being called on them, and get_core_offset()
> doesn't
> >>   handle IFLIB_INTR_IOV type interrupts, which results in an assert()
> being triggered
> >>   in iflib_irq_set_affinity().
> >>
> >>   PR:                235730
> >>   Reported by:       Jeffrey Pieper <jeffrey.e.pieper at intel.com>
> >>   MFC after: 1 day
> >
> > Normally you would request an RE@ approval for a fast track to stable,
> > consider this message such an approval.
>
> That does not match our historical practice over the past 20 years.  If we
> want to change that practice, that's a topic we can debate, but re@ has
> only required oversight on MFC's during slushes/freezes with the additional
> caveat of perhaps watching out for ABI breakage at any time (and requiring
> approvals for a known ABI breakage on a branch).
>
> --
> John Baldwin
>
>
>
>