Hi, Bjorn Thanks for your constructive review.
One logistical issue here is that the first patch touches several architectures at once, which puts Jesse in a bit of a pinch. If he applies it, there's always the possibility that an arch patch will conflict with it, which makes merging harder.
In case the conflicts happen, the effort to resolve them should be trivial (a matter of an extra NULL argument), I suppose. Also, the odds of other incoming arch patches making a reference to pci_create_bus() should not be great.
It might be easier if, instead of changing the pci_create_bus() interface, you added a new one (it could call pci_create_bus() then replace the resources, so the implementation could still be mostly shared.) We already have a plethora of "create bus" methods (pci_create_bus(), pci_scan_bus_parented(), pci_scan_bus()), but if you added a pci_create_root_bus() or something similar, maybe we could try to converge on it and obsolete the others. Then the first patch would touch only the PCI core, and the second would touch only MIPS, which would make merging more straightforward.
Hmm.. Adding a wrapper of pci_create_bus() does leave other architectures alone for this merging. But before all of them converge on it (a long way to go), the wrapper is adding naming confusion to the PCI core. Personally I think the current low-level transparent change to pci_create_bus() is appropriate enough. Does anybody have comments? Deng-Cheng -- 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
