Re: [Bulk] Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PCI] Check that MWI bit really did get set

> > If the drivers doesn't care and if it makes no difference to performance
> > then just delete the call to pci_set_mwi().
> > 
> > But if MWI _does_ make a difference to performance then we should tell
> > someone that it isn't working rather than silently misbehaving?

To repeat:  it's not "misbehaving" since support for MWI cycles is
completely optional.  It'd be more interesting to get messages in
the cases that it can be enabled, since typically it can't be.


> That sounds like we need a printk inside pci_set_mwi then, rather than
> adding a printk to every single caller.

Maybe wrapped in #ifdef CONFIG_SPAM_MY_KERNEL_LOG_MESSAGES ... :)

-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 1/2] [PCI] Check that MWI bit really did get set
    • From: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Bulk] Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PCI] Check that MWI bit really did get set
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Bulk] Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PCI] Check that MWI bit really did get set
    • From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/4] bnep endianness bug: filtering by packet type
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PCI] Check that MWI bit really did get set
• Previous by thread: Re: [Bulk] Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PCI] Check that MWI bit really did get set
• Next by thread: 2.6.19-rc1: Oops in probe_hwif
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]