[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070712000149.GX9704@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:01:49 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
pcihpd-discuss@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
James.Smart@...lex.Com
Subject: Re: [Pcihpd-discuss] [PATCH 26/34] PCI: add pci_try_set_mwi
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 04:31:40PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> As suggested by Andrew, add pci_try_set_mwi(), which does not require
> return-value checking.
Seems like a daft suggestion. What's wrong with just removing the
__must_check from pci_set_mwi()? Did it find any bugs?
> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> @@ -1578,10 +1578,7 @@ lpfc_pci_probe_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *pid)
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&phba->fc_nodes);
>
> pci_set_master(pdev);
> - retval = pci_set_mwi(pdev);
> - if (retval)
> - dev_printk(KERN_WARNING, &pdev->dev,
> - "Warning: pci_set_mwi returned %d\n", retval);
> + pci_try_set_mwi(pdev);
Why remove the warning? Presumably people want to know if pci_set_mwi
failed.
--
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
-
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