On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 09:09:02AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Alexander. > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 02:52:47PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > One curiosity - with the above factored out, is > pci_enable_msi_block_part() returning positive number still necessary? > I followed most of code paths in x86 and nothing seems to need it and > positive return seems to be just causing confusion - ie. returning 1 > on multiple msi config failure from some functions, which is silly. You mean we could treat positive numbers returned by architecture as failures and translate it into negative error codes? If so, I would prefer not to do this for two reasons: 1. It will not be possible to call pci_enable_msi_block_part() in a loop. Although there are no consumers right now I think the very possibility is better to keep. 2. The semantics of pci_enable_msi_block_part() is very close to pci_enable_msi_block(). I believe having a consisting interface for these two helps readability. > Thanks. > > -- > tejun -- Regards, Alexander Gordeev agordeev@xxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
