On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:02:40 +0100
Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ar Sul, 2006-10-15 am 16:18 -0700, ysgrifennodd Andrew Morton:
> > No. If pci_set_mwi() detects an unexpected error then the driver should
> > take some action: report it, recover from it, fail to load, etc. If the
> > driver fails to do any of this then it's a buggy driver.
>
> Wrong and there are several drivers in the kernel that are proof of
> this.
Let me restore the words from my earlier email which you removed so that
you could say that:
For you the driver author to make assumptions about what's happening
inside pci_set_mwi() is a layering violation. Maybe the bridge got
hot-unplugged. Maybe the attempt to set MWI caused some synchronous PCI
error. For example, take a look at the various implementations of
pci_ops.read() around the place - various of them can fail for various
reasons.
> > You, the driver author _do not know_ what pci_set_mwi() does at present, on
> > all platforms, nor do you know what it does in the future. For you the
>
> You don't care. It isn't an error for set_mwi to fail. In fact the only
> reason set_mwi even needs to bother with a return code is that some
> chips want you to set other config private to the device if it is
> available and active.
>
Let me restore the words from my earlier email which you removed which
address that:
Now it could be that an appropriate solution is to make pci_set_mwi()
return only 0 or 1, and to generate a warning from within pci_set_mwi()
if some unexpected error happens. In which case it is legitimate for
callers to not check for errors.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
