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 netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
