Hi Rafael, I didn't hear back after the analysis that there is no regression after this patch. Did you have a chance to think about this patch ? Thanks Breno Ben Hutchings wrote: > 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. > -- 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