On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 12:35:43PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 01:55:24PM -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote: > > > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2]: Renumber PCI error enums to start at zero > > > > Renumber the PCI error enums to start at zero for "normal/online". > > This allows un-initialized pci channel state (which defaults to zero) > > to be interpreted as "normal". Add very simple routine to check > > state, just in case this ever has to be fiddled with again. > > No, as you have a specific type for this state, never test it against > "zero". That just defeats the whole issue of having a special type for > this state.
Yes, well, I guess that was my initial thinking, which is why it got coded that way. But "in real life", the value in the struct isn't initialized (thus taking a value of zero). Its not initialized in deference to the traditional idea that "just saying bzero() should be enough". However, that turned the test for error into a dorky double test: if(pdev->error_state && pdev->error_state != pci_channel_io_normal) which struck me as lame. So, I'll ask: is it better to test for (state!=0 && state!=1) or, to initialize pdev->error_state = pci_channel_io_normal; in the driver probe code? --linas - 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/
