[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <535B1EB4.3050408@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:49:24 +0800
From: Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Refactor pci_is_brdige() to simplify code
On 2014/4/25 17:42, David Laight wrote:
> From: Yijing Wang
>> This patchset rename the current pci_is_bridge() to pci_has_subordinate(),
>> and introduce a new pci_is_bridge() which determine pci bridge by check
>> dev->hdr_type. The new one is more accurate. PCIe Spec define the pci
>> device is a bridge by the dev->hdr_type = 0x01 || 0x02.
>
> That is a dangerous rename and is likely to cause difficult to
Hi David,
I renamed pci_is_bridge() to pci_has_subordinate() because
static inline bool pci_is_bridge(struct pci_dev *pci_dev)
{
return !!(pci_dev->subordinate);
}
which always check dev->subordinate.
> identify bugs in any code you've missed.
What are you referring to ?
Thanks!
Yijing.
>
> David
>
> .�{.n�+�������+%��lzwm��b�맲��r��zX��..�w��{ay�.ʇڙ�,j.��f���h���z�.�w���.���j:+v���w�j�m����.����zZ+�����ݢj"��!�iO��z��v�^...�.m����.nƊ��Y&�
>
--
Thanks!
Yijing
--
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