On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:50:39 +0800
> Ram Pai <linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:11:56PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Don Dutile <ddutile@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > why not something more explicit like:
>> > >
>> > > for (i = 0; i < DEVICE_COUNT_RESOURCE; i++) {
>> > > if ((i >= PCI_IOV_RESOURCES) && (i <= PCI_IOV_RESOURCE_END))
>> > > continue; /* skip sriov related resources */
>> > >
>> > > if (dev->resource[i].flags & flags)
>> > > bars |= (1 << i);
>> > > }
>>
>> I like this approach too. Offcourse the SRIOV skipping has to be one under #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV.
I was always told:
#ifdef is ugly. Try to avoid it.
>>
>> Yinghai/Jesse, do you want to make a patch on top of the current jesse's to-linus
>> tree or want to revert my patch and apply your fix? If it is the former, do you want me
>> to make the patch?
>
> I like the above best as well with the comment.
>
> Can you send me a replacement patch? I'd rather have that than some
> breakage in the patches I have in my for-linus branch.
yes, update your patch.
We should not break the bisecting if possible before it hit linus tree.
Thanks
Yinghai
--
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
