[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17714.54766.390707.532248@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:44:30 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
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
Andrew Morton writes:
> 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.
Maybe aliens are firing a ray-gun at the card. I think it's
fundamentally wrong for the driver to deny service completely because
of a maybe.
Either there was a transient error that only affected the attempt to
set MWI, in which case a printk (inside pci_set_mwi!) is appropriate,
and we carry on. Or there is a persistent error condition, in which
case the driver will see something else fail soon enough - something
that the driver actually needs to have working in order to operate -
and fail at that point.
For the driver to stop and refuse to go any further because of an
error in pci_set_mwi has far more disadvantages than advantages.
Paul.
-
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