[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1160996576.24237.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:02:56 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, matthew@....cx,
val_henson@...ux.intel.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PCI] Check that MWI bit really did get set
Ar Sul, 2006-10-15 am 16:44 -0700, ysgrifennodd Andrew Morton:
> Let me restore the words from my earlier email which you removed so that
> you could say that:
>
> For you the driver author to make assumptions about what's happening
> inside pci_set_mwi() is a layering violation. Maybe the bridge got
> hot-unplugged. Maybe the attempt to set MWI caused some synchronous PCI
> error. For example, take a look at the various implementations of
> pci_ops.read() around the place - various of them can fail for various
> reasons.
Let me repeat what I said before. As a driver author I do not care. It
doesn't matter if it failed because it is not supported or because a
pink elephant went for a dance on the PCI bus.
> Now it could be that an appropriate solution is to make pci_set_mwi()
> return only 0 or 1, and to generate a warning from within pci_set_mwi()
> if some unexpected error happens. In which case it is legitimate for
> callers to not check for errors.
That would be my belief, and ditto for a lot of these other functions -
even the correctly __must_check ones like pci_set_master should do the
error reporting in the set_master() function etc not in every driver.
That gives us a single consistent printk and avoids missing them out or
bloat.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists