HI Bjorn, Please provide your valuable suggestion/reply here.
Thank you, Sreekanth -----Original Message----- From: Suganath Prabu Subramani [mailto:suganath-prabu.subram...@broadcom.com] Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 12:15 PM To: helg...@kernel.org Cc: lu...@wunner.de; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; linux-...@vger.kernel.org; Andy Shevchenko; Sathya Prakash; Sreekanth Reddy; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; b...@kernel.crashing.org; rus...@russell.cc; sbobr...@linux.ibm.com; Oliver Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] mpt3sas: Introduce mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:34 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helg...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:40:51PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > I think the names "pci_device_is_present()" and > > "mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available()" contribute to the problem > > because they make promises that can't be kept -- all we can say is > > that the device *was* present, but we know whether it is *still* > > present. Bjorn, In the patch we are using '!' (i.e. not operation) of pci_device_is_present(), which is logically same as pci_device_is absent, and it is same for mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available(). My understanding is that, you want us to rename these functions for better readability Is that correct ? > Oops, I meant "we DON'T know whether it is still present." > > > I think it would be better if the interfaces were something > > like "pci_device_is_absent()" because that gives a result we can rely > > on. If that returns true, we know the device is definitely gone. > > > > Bjorn
