Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
(2010/04/09 9:23), Kenji Kaneshige wrote:How about changing ROOT_ERR_STATUS_MASK as follows instead of removing it. #define ROOT_ERR_STATUS_MASK (PCI_ERR_ROOT_UNCOR_RCV | \ PCI_ERR_ROOT_MULTI_UNCOR_RCV | \ PCI_ERR_ROOT_COR_RCV | \ PCI_ERR_ROOT_MULTI_COR_RCV)I did this change at first. However this mask is used only once, and I thought it would be painful for readers to force searching this macro from kernel tree and to force having unmemorable information "this is combination of 4 bits" that will never used again. So I removed this alias and use bits directly. I don't know which is preferred, changing or removing. But IMHO renaming fuzzy ROOT_ERR_STATUS_MASK to something like PCI_ERR_ROOT_ERR_RCV_MASK is also good if changing is preferred. How do you think?
I mis-understood that those four bits were all the status bits in the Root Error Status Register defined in PCIe spec. So I thought it was natural to have PCI_ERR_STATUS_MASK and use it to check all the status bits. This was the reason of my suggestion. But now I noticed that it is not a set of all the status bits, but a set of bits to which aer interrupt hander is interested. It would be hard for people to understand what PCI_ERR_ROOT_STATUS_MASK stands for. As a result, I think your change is good. By the way, do we need to check PCI_ERR_ROOT_MULTI_UNCOR_RCV and PCI_ERR_ROOT_MULTI_COR_RCV here? Thanks, Kenji Kaneshige -- 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
