On Fri, 2021-10-01 at 17:52 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > On 2021-10-01 4:58 p.m., Kelvin.Cao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-10-01 at 15:18 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > Didn't notice this before, but the "check_access()" name is not > > > very > > > helpful because it doesn't give a clue about what the return > > > value > > > means. Does 0 mean no error? Does 1 mean no error? From > > > reading > > > the > > > implementation, I can see that 0 is actually the error case, but > > > I > > > can't tell from the name. > > > > Yes, will improve the naming, like change it to "has_gas_access()" > > in > > v2 if a v2 patchset is preferred. > > I'd keep the GAS name out of the kernel. How about something along > the > lines of is_firmware_running()? Maybe a comment for the function > would > be good as well. > Yes, that'll be an improvement. > Logan
