From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qe0-x231.google.com (mail-qe0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7568A2C016E for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:54:20 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail-qe0-f49.google.com with SMTP id ff1so568691qeb.36 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:54:13 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Alexander Gordeev Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 07/77] PCI/MSI: Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern Message-ID: <20131009155413.GD22495@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20131007181749.GB27396@htj.dyndns.org> <20131008074826.GD10669@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20131008074826.GD10669@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, "VMware, Inc." , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Andy King , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, iss_storagedev@hp.com, linux-driver@qlogic.com, Bjorn Helgaas , Dan Williams , Jon Mason , Solarflare linux maintainers , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle , e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Martin Schwidefsky , linux390@de.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello, Alexander. On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 09:48:26AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > > If there are many which duplicate the above pattern, it'd probably be > > worthwhile to provide a helper? It's usually a good idea to reduce > > the amount of boilerplate code in drivers. > > I wanted to limit discussion in v1 to as little changes as possible. > I 'planned' those helper(s) for a separate effort if/when the most > important change is accepted and soaked a bit. The thing is doing it this way generates more churns and noises. Once the simpler ones live behind a wrapper which can be built on the existing interface, we can have both reduced cost and more latitude on the complex cases. > > If we do things this way, it breaks all drivers using this interface > > until they're converted, right? > > Right. And the rest of the series does it. Which breaks bisection which we shouldn't do. > > Also, it probably isn't the best idea > > to flip the behavior like this as this can go completely unnoticed (no > > compiler warning or anything, the same function just behaves > > differently). Maybe it'd be a better idea to introduce a simpler > > interface that most can be converted to? > > Well, an *other* interface is a good idea. What do you mean with the > simpler here? I'm still talking about a simpler wrapper for common cases, which is the important part anyway. Thanks. -- tejun