RE: [PATCH v4 1/6] mpt3sas: Introduce mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available

[Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@broadcom.com>]

HI Bjorn,

Please provide your valuable suggestion/reply here.

Thank you,
Sreekanth

-----Original Message-----
From: Suganath Prabu Subramani
[mailto:suganath-prabu.subramani@broadcom.com]
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 12:15 PM
To: helgaas@kernel.org
Cc: lukas@wunner.de; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci@vger.kernel.org;
Andy Shevchenko; Sathya Prakash; Sreekanth Reddy;
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; benh@kernel.crashing.org; ruscur@russell.cc;
sbobroff@linux.ibm.com; Oliver
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] mpt3sas: Introduce
mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:34 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:40:51PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > I think the names "pci_device_is_present()" and
> > "mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available()" contribute to the problem
> > because they make promises that can't be kept -- all we can say is
> > that the device *was* present, but we know whether it is *still*
> > present.

Bjorn,

In the patch we are using '!' (i.e. not operation) of
pci_device_is_present(),
which is logically same as pci_device_is absent, and it is
same for mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available().
My understanding is that, you want us to rename these functions for
better readability
Is that correct ?


> Oops, I meant "we DON'T know whether it is still present."
>
> > I think it would be better if the interfaces were something
> > like "pci_device_is_absent()" because that gives a result we can rely
> > on.  If that returns true, we know the device is definitely gone.
> >
> > Bjorn