From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp07.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.140]:56809 "EHLO e23smtp07.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751251AbaJPATV (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2014 20:19:21 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp07.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:19:19 +1000 Received: from d23relay05.au.ibm.com (d23relay05.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.152]) by d23dlp02.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1560F2BB003F for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:19:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s9FNshoB10289430 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:54:43 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s9G0JHeO007516 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:19:17 +1100 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:19:21 +1100 From: Gavin Shan To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Gavin Shan , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Richard Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Make reset warning messages different Message-ID: <20141016001920.GA18777@shangw> Reply-To: Gavin Shan References: <1413416470-14828-1-git-send-email-gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 05:48:35PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Gavin Shan wrote: >> We have same warning message for FLR and AF FLR and users can't >> know which type of resets the PCI device is taking when there are >> pending transactions. The patch makes them different for FLR and >> AF FLR cases. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan >> --- >> drivers/pci/pci.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c >> index 625a4ac..2d708cd 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c >> @@ -3144,7 +3144,7 @@ static int pcie_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe) >> return 0; >> >> if (!pci_wait_for_pending_transaction(dev)) >> - dev_err(&dev->dev, "transaction is not cleared; proceeding with reset anyway\n"); >> + dev_err(&dev->dev, "Force FLR with pending transaction\n"); >> >> pcie_capability_set_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_BCR_FLR); >> >> @@ -3178,7 +3178,7 @@ static int pci_af_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe) >> PCI_AF_STATUS_TP << 8)) >> goto clear; >> >> - dev_err(&dev->dev, "transaction is not cleared; proceeding with reset anyway\n"); >> + dev_err(&dev->dev, "Force AF FLR with pending transaction\n"); > >Making the text different is fine, but I don't think "FLR" and "AF >FLR" are meaningful except to extremely technical people. So I think >"reset" needs to stay spelled out in the message. > Agree, it's worthy to keep "reset". How about something like this: "Force function level reset with pending transaction" - FLR "Force AF function level reset with pending transaction" - AF FLR If above messages look good to you, I'll send out another revision. Thanks, Gavin >> clear: >> pci_write_config_byte(dev, pos + PCI_AF_CTRL, PCI_AF_CTRL_FLR); >> -- >> 1.8.3.2 >> >