Re: [Pcihpd-discuss] [PATCH 26/34] PCI: add pci_try_set_mwi

[James Smart <James.Smart@Emulex.Com>]

I'm agnostic on the change... As long as we get a message somewhere
when the failure is meaningful, I'm fine with this change. I didn't
like setting mwi by the driver anyway - it should have already been
done by the platform.

-- james s


Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
> > > > @@ -1578,10 +1578,7 @@ lpfc_pci_probe_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *pid)
> > > >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&phba->fc_nodes);
> > > >  
> > > >  	pci_set_master(pdev);
> > > > -	retval = pci_set_mwi(pdev);
> > > > -	if (retval)
> > > > -		dev_printk(KERN_WARNING, &pdev->dev,
> > > > -			   "Warning: pci_set_mwi returned %d\n", retval);
> > > > +	pci_try_set_mwi(pdev);
> > > Why remove the warning?  Presumably people want to know if pci_set_mwi
> > > failed.
> > Randy, this was your change, right?
>
> Uh, I think that my thinking was like this:
>
> pci_try_set_mwi() and pci_set_mwi() are both "try best effort"
> functions.  Neither of them guarantees that pci_set_cacheline_size()
> will succeed.  And in case of serious problems, pci_set_cacheline_size()
> will print a (KERN_DEBUG) message.
>
>
> Anyway, I don't mind restoring the former lpfc code if that is what
> should be done.
>
> ---
> ~Randy
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/