Re: [parisc-linux] pdc_add_valid

[Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>]

On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 02:58:13PM -0700, Stan Sieler wrote:
> > 	if (valid_io_addr (port+4)) {
> vs:
> > +       return (pdc_add_valid (addr) == PDC_OK);
> 
> The latter has the advantage that the reader knows it's a PDC
> routine being called, not some kernel routine that could be done
> who knows what.
> 
> Thus, I'd go for the latter, or change your "valid_io_addr" to
> "pdc_valid_io_addr", to (a) be readable; and (b) convey the PDC info.

I should have explained this in my original mail... the reason I don't
want to make this a pdc_* call is that I believe we have an expectation
that pdc_* calls return PDC_ error codes.  Perhaps this isn't an
expectation that people have, in which case I don't have an objection
to simply renaming pdc_add_valid to pdc_addr_valid, and changing the
sense of the return value.

-- 
Revolutions do not require corporate support.