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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
