From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this? Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:45:36 -0800 Message-ID: <20080213044536.GC10101@kroah.com> References: <20080213001506.GA13933@kroah.com> <20080213001638.GB13933@kroah.com> <20080213021737.72b9815d@core> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:60067 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765392AbYBMGCU (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:02:20 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080213021737.72b9815d@core> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: muli@il.ibm.com, jdmason@kudzu.us, bzolnier@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 02:17:37AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > Why does the calgary driver need this? Can we just use pci_get_device() > > instead? Why do you need to walk the device list backwards? Do you get > > false positives going forward? > > It doesn't look to be performance critical so the driver can > pci_get_device until the end and use the final hit anyway. That would make more sense. > IDE reverse is more problematic but nobody seems to use it. I've seen two posters say they use it. I'm wondering what it is really solving if they use it, and why if it's really needed, scsi never had to implement such a hack... thanks, greg k-h