> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 04:27 > To: Jork Loeser <Jork.Loeser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; olaf@xxxxxxxxx; > apw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx; jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx; > leann.ogasawara@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; marcelo.cerri@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stephen > Hemminger <sthemmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Hyper-V vPCI: use vPCI protocol version 1.2 > > Minor nits only. > > +#define HV_X64_EX_PROCESSOR_MASKS_RECOMMENDED (1 << 11) > > Use BIT(11). I thought checkpatch.pl complains about this but I guess that's only > with the --strict option. Not addressing here as per Stephen's comment - this use is prevalent in the current code. > > @@ -900,36 +1074,42 @@ static void hv_compose_msi_msg(struct irq_data [...] > > + switch (pci_protocol_version) { > > + case PCI_PROTOCOL_VERSION_1_1: [...] > > + default: > > + /* As we only negotiate protocol versions known to this driver, > > + * this path should never hit. However, this is it not a hot > > + * path so we print a message to aid future updates. > > + */ > > + dev_err(&hbus->hdev->device, > > + "Unexpected vPCI protocol, update driver."); > > We should check the protocol version in probe() instead of here. It is checked in probe(). The catch-all is merely a helper in case future updates miss adapting. Regards, Jork _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
