Sam Bobroff <sbobr...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 01:40:46AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Sam Bobroff <sbobr...@linux.ibm.com> writes: >> >> > As EEH event handling progresses, a cumulative result of type >> > pci_ers_result is built up by (some of) the eeh_report_*() functions >> > using either: >> > if (rc == PCI_ERS_RESULT_NEED_RESET) *res = rc; >> > if (*res == PCI_ERS_RESULT_NONE) *res = rc; >> > or: >> > if ((*res == PCI_ERS_RESULT_NONE) || >> > (*res == PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED)) *res = rc; >> > if (*res == PCI_ERS_RESULT_DISCONNECT && >> > rc == PCI_ERS_RESULT_NEED_RESET) *res = rc; >> > (Where *res is the accumulator.) >> > >> > However, the intent is not immediately clear and the result in some >> > situations is order dependent. >> > >> > Address this by assigning a priority to each result value, and always >> > merging to the highest priority. This renders the intent clear, and >> > provides a stable value for all orderings. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Sam Bobroff <sbobr...@linux.ibm.com> >> > --- >> > ====== v1 -> v2: ====== >> > >> > * Added the value, and missing newline, to some WARN()s. >> > * Improved name of merge_result() to pci_ers_merge_result(). >> > * Adjusted the result priorities so that unknown doesn't overlap with >> > _NONE. >> >> These === markers seem to have confused patchwork, they ended up in the >> patch, and then git put them in the changelog. >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/920194/ >> >> The usual format is just something like: >> >> v2 - Added the value, and missing newline, to some WARN()s. >> - Improved name of merge_result() to pci_ers_merge_result(). >> - Adjusted the result priorities so that unknown doesn't overlap with >> _NONE. >> >> cheers > > Oh! I'll change it!
Thanks. cheers