On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:02:40 +0100 Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ar Sul, 2006-10-15 am 16:18 -0700, ysgrifennodd Andrew Morton: > > No. If pci_set_mwi() detects an unexpected error then the driver should > > take some action: report it, recover from it, fail to load, etc. If the > > driver fails to do any of this then it's a buggy driver. > > Wrong and there are several drivers in the kernel that are proof of > this. 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. > > You, the driver author _do not know_ what pci_set_mwi() does at present, on > > all platforms, nor do you know what it does in the future. For you the > > You don't care. It isn't an error for set_mwi to fail. In fact the only > reason set_mwi even needs to bother with a return code is that some > chips want you to set other config private to the device if it is > available and active. > Let me restore the words from my earlier email which you removed which address that: 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. - 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
