Ar Sul, 2006-10-15 am 16:44 -0700, ysgrifennodd Andrew Morton:
> 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.
Let me repeat what I said before. As a driver author I do not care. It
doesn't matter if it failed because it is not supported or because a
pink elephant went for a dance on the PCI bus.
> 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.
That would be my belief, and ditto for a lot of these other functions -
even the correctly __must_check ones like pci_set_master should do the
error reporting in the set_master() function etc not in every driver.
That gives us a single consistent printk and avoids missing them out or
bloat.
Alan
-
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]
