Hi David, > The problem is when you start declaring function pointers in various > ops vectors. > > Consider: > > void (*foo)(const struct pci_dev *) > void (*bar)(struct pci_dev *) > > foo and bar are not type compatible, and you will get compiler > warnings if you use one where the other is expected. > > So the question is: Are we ever going to the address of any of the > functions that are being modified? If so, we have created a problem. > i could not find any place in the code where this happens, which does not mean that there are none. >> Similar reasoning applies to of_irq_map_pci(). >> >> So I'm fine with this. You sent it to Grant, so I'll assume he'll >> merge it unless I hear otherwise. >> >> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas<bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Thanks for the Ack, i hope this patch gets accepted as is. I am simply missing the overview of the pci subsystem to evaluate if this can cause regressions. John -- 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
