From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761414AbZEMUdR (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 16:33:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752735AbZEMUc7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 16:32:59 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:36807 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752055AbZEMUc6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2009 16:32:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4A0B2E71.1080807@goop.org> Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:32:49 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesse Barnes CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Ingo Molnar , the arch/x86 maintainers , Matthew Wilcox , Joerg Roedel , FUJITA Tomonori , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Xen-devel , Alex Nixon Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] x86/PCI: Enable scanning of all pci functions References: <1242164891-3859-1-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <1242164891-3859-7-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <20090513095535.140134e1@jbarnes-g45> <4A0AFE84.2040805@goop.org> <20090513102316.5ef3ce4e@jbarnes-g45> In-Reply-To: <20090513102316.5ef3ce4e@jbarnes-g45> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jesse Barnes wrote: >> I'd probably go the weak function path if I were to do either of >> those, but do you think it would be significantly better? >> > > Well it would avoid the #undef, which is the gross part. But since > it's just a boolean, you could also do > > #ifndef PCI_SCAN_ALL_FNS > #define PCI_SCAN_ALL_FNS 0 > #endif > > in the generic code, then just set it to 1 before asm-generic/pci.h > gets included. That would mean updating arch code though. > If its just x86 then that's OK, but I'd prefer not to have to touch all arches. Hm, doesn't look too bad. > Anyway it's not a big deal, this code is already ugly (a 0 define for > all arches? why?) so you shouldn't have to spend too much time > cleaning it up. > Yes, it seems to be a vestigial thing which goes into pre-git-history. I think when I dug into it, I found there was one Power user of it, but that use evaporated in their arch unification. But I might be mis-remembering. J