[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181002140443.GA120535@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:04:43 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Suganath Prabu Subramani <suganath-prabu.subramani@...adcom.com>
Cc: lukas@...ner.de, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Sathya Prakash <Sathya.Prakash@...adcom.com>,
Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...adcom.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
ruscur@...sell.cc, sbobroff@...ux.ibm.com, oohall@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] mpt3sas: Introduce
mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:40:51PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I think the names "pci_device_is_present()" and
> "mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available()" contribute to the problem
> because they make promises that can't be kept -- all we can say is
> that the device *was* present, but we know whether it is *still*
> present.
Oops, I meant "we DON'T know whether it is still present."
> I think it would be better if the interfaces were something
> like "pci_device_is_absent()" because that gives a result we can rely
> on. If that returns true, we know the device is definitely gone.
>
> Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists