[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140717102252.GA17987@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:22:52 +0200
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI/MSI: Remove arch_msi_check_device()
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:20:24PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > @@ -809,22 +799,23 @@ out_free:
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > - * pci_msi_check_device - check whether MSI may be enabled on a device
> > + * msi_check_device - check whether MSI may be enabled on a device
> > * @dev: pointer to the pci_dev data structure of MSI device function
> > * @nvec: how many MSIs have been requested ?
> > - * @type: are we checking for MSI or MSI-X ?
> > *
> > * Look at global flags, the device itself, and its parent buses
> > * to determine if MSI/-X are supported for the device. If MSI/-X is
> > * supported return 0, else return an error code.
> > **/
> > -static int pci_msi_check_device(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type)
> > +static int msi_check_device(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec)
>
> I think "check_device" is a terrible name because it really doesn't
> give a clue about what it's doing or what the return value means.
> Since you're removing the external usage (arch_msi_check_device) and
> this one is static, this would be a good time to fix it. Maybe
> "pci_msi_supported()" or something?
What about pci_can_enable_msi() or pci_msi_can_enable() or msi_can_enable()?
> I *love* the idea of getting rid of this much code!
>
> Bjorn
--
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