From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B22151A02B5 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:22:10 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:22:52 +0200 From: Alexander Gordeev To: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI/MSI: Remove arch_msi_check_device() Message-ID: <20140717102252.GA17987@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> References: <1005232855c3af2c0c669818ee63be445389b6ad.1405160163.git.agordeev@redhat.com> <20140716222024.GE14366@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20140716222024.GE14366@google.com> Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 04:20:24PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > @@ -809,22 +799,23 @@ out_free: > > } > > > > /** > > - * pci_msi_check_device - check whether MSI may be enabled on a device > > + * msi_check_device - check whether MSI may be enabled on a device > > * @dev: pointer to the pci_dev data structure of MSI device function > > * @nvec: how many MSIs have been requested ? > > - * @type: are we checking for MSI or MSI-X ? > > * > > * Look at global flags, the device itself, and its parent buses > > * to determine if MSI/-X are supported for the device. If MSI/-X is > > * supported return 0, else return an error code. > > **/ > > -static int pci_msi_check_device(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type) > > +static int msi_check_device(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec) > > I think "check_device" is a terrible name because it really doesn't > give a clue about what it's doing or what the return value means. > Since you're removing the external usage (arch_msi_check_device) and > this one is static, this would be a good time to fix it. Maybe > "pci_msi_supported()" or something? What about pci_can_enable_msi() or pci_msi_can_enable() or msi_can_enable()? > I *love* the idea of getting rid of this much code! > > Bjorn -- Regards, Alexander Gordeev agordeev@redhat.com