On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 12:13 -0200, Breno Leitao wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday 13 November 2009, Breno Leitao wrote: > >> Actually pci_restore_state() is returning 0 if the restore process > >> fails, instead of a error value. > >> > >> If it fails, I believe that it should return -EPERM, once that > >> it is an invalid operation and probably pci_save_state() wasn't > >> called. > > > > I believe this patch will break a number of things. > Well, I checked it, and found that there are around 10 places that > really verify the return value for this function, and almost all of them > do the correct thing, and the patch doesn't seem to break any of them > except a specific case in the drivers/net/sfc/falcon.c file, that contains: [...] > That's because the code is calling pci_restore_state() twice without calling > pci_save_state() in the middle. > Since this seems to be the only place that will be broken, and the fix is > trivial, I believe that the patch can be applied smoothly. [...] This code supports two similar PCI devices, one of which has a second function that is not truly independent. For that chip it saves and restores both functions' config space. So far as I know, there are no cases where it fails to match save and restore. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. -- 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
