* Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Yeah, maybe checkpatch.pl should include that in its output, "Be > > > sure the md5sums of the code & data match before you claim things > > > are identical". :) > > > > yeah, and we normally do that - see commits 97b44ae6cd8 or > > 177773ed87. > > > > The cleanup intent from Neil was good in principle: the > > early_quirks() function was too large and the introduction of > > check_dev_quirk() improved readability. > > Yeah, the cleanup was a worthwhile one I think; when I saw the code it > was pretty clear what went wrong though, just a common thinko. No big > deal. > > > Btw., did this mistake cause any actual regression or misbehavior? > > The commit is rather old and i dont remember anything seriously > > blowing up due to this. (we had another far more serious bug in this > > area) > > No, I haven't seen any problems on real platforms; I noticed this > problem while doing bringup on a simulator. The simulator has some > other issues that make probing non-existent sub-functions a bad idea. > :) On most machines it'll be an unnoticeable speedup (yay). ok, good. Do you still think we should do the change and go back to the old behavior? To me the old behavior sounds more robust, even if it has no real effect. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
