lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Pcihpd-discuss] [PATCH 26/34] PCI: add pci_try_set_mwi
I'm agnostic on the change... As long as we get a message somewhere
when the failure is meaningful, I'm fine with this change. I didn't
like setting mwi by the driver anyway - it should have already been
done by the platform.

-- james s


Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c
>>>> @@ -1578,10 +1578,7 @@ lpfc_pci_probe_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *pid)
>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&phba->fc_nodes);
>>>>
>>>> pci_set_master(pdev);
>>>> - retval = pci_set_mwi(pdev);
>>>> - if (retval)
>>>> - dev_printk(KERN_WARNING, &pdev->dev,
>>>> - "Warning: pci_set_mwi returned %d\n", retval);
>>>> + pci_try_set_mwi(pdev);
>>> Why remove the warning? Presumably people want to know if pci_set_mwi
>>> failed.
>> Randy, this was your change, right?
>
> Uh, I think that my thinking was like this:
>
> pci_try_set_mwi() and pci_set_mwi() are both "try best effort"
> functions. Neither of them guarantees that pci_set_cacheline_size()
> will succeed. And in case of serious problems, pci_set_cacheline_size()
> will print a (KERN_DEBUG) message.
>
>
> Anyway, I don't mind restoring the former lpfc code if that is what
> should be done.
>
> ---
> ~Randy
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-12 13:33    [W:0.191 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site