[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080213021737.72b9815d@core>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:17:37 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: muli@...ibm.com, jdmason@...zu.us, bzolnier@...il.com,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, discuss@...-64.org
Subject: Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?
> Why does the calgary driver need this? Can we just use pci_get_device()
> instead? Why do you need to walk the device list backwards? Do you get
> false positives going forward?
It doesn't look to be performance critical so the driver can
pci_get_device until the end and use the final hit anyway. IDE reverse is
more problematic but nobody seems to use it.
--
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