[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130905150259.GA30984@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:03:00 +0200
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] PCI/MSI: Factor out pci_get_msi_cap() interface
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 09:09:02AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Alexander.
>
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 02:52:47PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> One curiosity - with the above factored out, is
> pci_enable_msi_block_part() returning positive number still necessary?
> I followed most of code paths in x86 and nothing seems to need it and
> positive return seems to be just causing confusion - ie. returning 1
> on multiple msi config failure from some functions, which is silly.
You mean we could treat positive numbers returned by architecture as
failures and translate it into negative error codes?
If so, I would prefer not to do this for two reasons:
1. It will not be possible to call pci_enable_msi_block_part() in a loop.
Although there are no consumers right now I think the very possibility
is better to keep.
2. The semantics of pci_enable_msi_block_part() is very close to
pci_enable_msi_block(). I believe having a consisting interface for
these two helps readability.
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
--
Regards,
Alexander Gordeev
agordeev@...hat.com
--
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