linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] PCI/portdrv: add support for different MSI interrupts for PCIe port services

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <EE11001F9E5DDD47B7634E2F8A612F2E40A5484A@FRAEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2017 14:25:21 +0000
From:   Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:     "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "helgaas@...nel.org" <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lukas@...ner.de" <lukas@...ner.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com" <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        "liudongdong (C)" <liudongdong3@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] PCI/portdrv: add support for different MSI
 interrupts for PCIe port services

Hi Christoph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-pci-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-pci-
> owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Christoph Hellwig
> Sent: 22 May 2017 18:44
> To: Gabriele Paoloni
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig; bhelgaas@...gle.com; helgaas@...nel.org;
> Linuxarm; linux-pci@...r.kernel.org; lukas@...ner.de; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com; liudongdong
> (C)
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] PCI/portdrv: add support for different MSI
> interrupts for PCIe port services
> 
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 03:00:46PM +0000, Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
> >
> > I thought that in your previous review you meant to say that we
> should
> > avoid 2 instances of the same comment (in this patchset I only have
> this
> > instance as I have removed the same comment from patch 2/2...)
> 
> No, there is no pointin the comment.  The whole point of pci_irq_vector
> is to abstract away from how to get at the interrupt in detail.  There
> is no need to comment on this at the callsite.  If you think the
> existing documentation for the function is not good enough send a patch
> to improve it there instead of commenting the callsites.

Ok got it. I have just sent out v5 where this is fixed.
Thanks
Gab