On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 08:47:39AM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 02:09:08PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:39:22AM -0400, Amos Kong wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > How about moving code into functions so that it isn't duplicated for
> > > > each PCI device. See the patch below as an example (100% untested).
> >
> > Hmm, I sent patches that did a similar thing but
> > in a slightly more compact way.
> > Message ids:
> > 20110919092932.GB4501@xxxxxxxxxx
> > 20110919093644.GC4501@xxxxxxxxxx
> > 20110919100434.GA6764@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Did they not reach you or something's wrong with them?
>
> I received them, but when I saw Amos' v2 patch I thought he included
> them.
>
> > > > + /* Bulk generated PCI hotplug devices */
> > > > +#define hotplug_func(nr, fn) \
> > > > + Device (S##nr##fn) { \
> > > > + Name (_ADR, 0x##nr##000##fn) \
> > > > + Method (_EJ0, 1) { Return(PCEJ(0x##nr)) } \
> > > > + Name (_SUN, 0x##nr) \
> > > > + }
> >
> > The fundamental question is still why would
> > we have _EJ0 methods in functions >0 when they are
> > not individually hotpluggable.
> > I think only function 0 should have _EJ0.
>
> I don't know the answer to this question.
>
> Maybe we should just collapse the current definitions and then put the
> fixes and enhancements on top of the collapsed version.
>
> -Kevin
OK, I'll refactor my patches.
I just sent a patchset which in particular removes
the gen_pci_device macro, probably best to work on top of that?
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
