On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:37:31 -0700 Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 06:01:49PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 04:31:40PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > As suggested by Andrew, add pci_try_set_mwi(), which does not require > > > return-value checking. > > > > Seems like a daft suggestion. What's wrong with just removing the > > __must_check from pci_set_mwi()? Did it find any bugs?
(a) Alan suggested just dropping __must_check IIRC. And David Brownell even sent a patch to do that (which Alan acked). (b) not that I know of. > > > --- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
