Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:29:00 -0400 | From | James Smart <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |