Dear Bjørn Erik Nilsen,
[...]
> > Won't simple
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < nvec; i++) {
> >
> > do here?
>
> Yes.
>
> The very same syntax ('while i < nvec') is used in assign_irq. That is
> why I wanted to keep it like that to avoid adding too much confusion, or
> at least make it easy to recognize the same pattern.
>
> You still want me to change it?
Your loop does exactly what a for() loop would do, there's no need to emulate it
with a while() loop. If you can fix the other one, fix the other one as well
please.
> As for the other nitpick, I don't agree with you.
>
> In fact, dw_msi_teardown_irq has no return value itself. Moreover, if
> setting the msi desc to NULL fails, then it simply means there is no irq
> desc and there is nothing to unwind. Also, skipping the other unwind
> operations just because that single operation failed would leave the
> driver in a much worse state. At least in my opinion.
>
> What's your opinion on that?
I see this:
$ git grep irq_set_msi_desc_off include/
include/linux/irq.h:extern int irq_set_msi_desc_off(unsigned int irq_base,
unsigned int irq_offset,
So it has a return value which needs to be handled. Sorry if I wasn't clear on
the first try.
> Now, if you want me to make another patch do you prefer a standalone
> patch on top of the other patches, or a completely new patchset?
Let's keep iterating :) But please wait for more feedback first.
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
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
