From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/30] PCI: remove pci_get_bus_and_slot() function Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:51:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20171122075124.GA26583@kroah.com> References: <1511328675-21981-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1511328675-21981-31-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <6a78596e-720a-80a2-9d96-dcc79a32f677@codeaurora.org> <25ec431a-2c1b-d352-f9ef-c663864664b6@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:35889 "EHLO out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751520AbdKVHvT (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2017 02:51:19 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <25ec431a-2c1b-d352-f9ef-c663864664b6@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Timur Tabi Cc: Sinan Kaya , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Bjorn Helgaas , open list On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:08:45AM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 11/21/17 11:55 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > > For places where domain number information is available, I extracted domain number > > and added into pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot() call such as xen or bn drivers. > > My suggestion is that you restrict your first patch set to only these > patches. > > > The assumption at this point is for pci_get_bus_and_slot() usages to be caught > > in code-review. > > How about this: > > static inline struct pci_dev * __deprecated pci_get_bus_and_slot(unsigned > int bus, > unsigned int devfn) > { > return pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(0, bus, devfn); > } Ick, no, why? What is wrong with removing this function as is? Don't mark something as __depreciated if there are no in-kernel users, just delete it and move on. If you have out-of-tree drivers, then yes, they can make a wrapper for this function like this if they really feel the need, or they can get their code merged :) thanks, greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:51:24 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/30] PCI: remove pci_get_bus_and_slot() function Message-ID: <20171122075124.GA26583@kroah.com> References: <1511328675-21981-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1511328675-21981-31-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <6a78596e-720a-80a2-9d96-dcc79a32f677@codeaurora.org> <25ec431a-2c1b-d352-f9ef-c663864664b6@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <25ec431a-2c1b-d352-f9ef-c663864664b6@codeaurora.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, open list , Sinan Kaya , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+bjorn=helgaas.com@lists.infradead.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:08:45AM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 11/21/17 11:55 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > > For places where domain number information is available, I extracted domain number > > and added into pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot() call such as xen or bn drivers. > > My suggestion is that you restrict your first patch set to only these > patches. > > > The assumption at this point is for pci_get_bus_and_slot() usages to be caught > > in code-review. > > How about this: > > static inline struct pci_dev * __deprecated pci_get_bus_and_slot(unsigned > int bus, > unsigned int devfn) > { > return pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(0, bus, devfn); > } Ick, no, why? What is wrong with removing this function as is? Don't mark something as __depreciated if there are no in-kernel users, just delete it and move on. If you have out-of-tree drivers, then yes, they can make a wrapper for this function like this if they really feel the need, or they can get their code merged :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:51:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 30/30] PCI: remove pci_get_bus_and_slot() function In-Reply-To: <25ec431a-2c1b-d352-f9ef-c663864664b6@codeaurora.org> References: <1511328675-21981-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1511328675-21981-31-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <6a78596e-720a-80a2-9d96-dcc79a32f677@codeaurora.org> <25ec431a-2c1b-d352-f9ef-c663864664b6@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20171122075124.GA26583@kroah.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:08:45AM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote: > On 11/21/17 11:55 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > > For places where domain number information is available, I extracted domain number > > and added into pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot() call such as xen or bn drivers. > > My suggestion is that you restrict your first patch set to only these > patches. > > > The assumption at this point is for pci_get_bus_and_slot() usages to be caught > > in code-review. > > How about this: > > static inline struct pci_dev * __deprecated pci_get_bus_and_slot(unsigned > int bus, > unsigned int devfn) > { > return pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(0, bus, devfn); > } Ick, no, why? What is wrong with removing this function as is? Don't mark something as __depreciated if there are no in-kernel users, just delete it and move on. If you have out-of-tree drivers, then yes, they can make a wrapper for this function like this if they really feel the need, or they can get their code merged :) thanks, greg k-h