On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:59:35 -0400 Tony Krowiak <akrow...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 08/15/2018 05:52 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:07 -0400 > > Tony Krowiak <akrow...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> +/** > >> + * unassign_adapter_store > >> + * > >> + * @dev: the matrix device > >> + * @attr: a mediated matrix device attribute > >> + * @buf: a buffer containing the adapter ID (APID) to be assigned > >> + * @count: the number of bytes in @buf > >> + * > >> + * Parses the APID from @buf and unassigns it from the mediated matrix > >> device. > >> + * The APID must be a valid value > > A valid value, but not necessarily assigned, right? > > You are correct, if the APID is not assigned, then the corresponding bit > will be > cleared regardless. In a previous version, the functions failed if the > APID is > not assigned, but a colleague removed that check. I guess it makes sense > given > it really does not hurt anything to ask to unassign an APID that isn't > assigned > to begin with. Would you prefer I update the comment, or do you feel the > user > should be made aware of an attempt to unassign an APID that is not assigned? I think the code is fine; updating the comment would be good.
