Hello, On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 02:42:45PM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote: > I have troubles with this fallback logic. On each failed step we get an > error and we do not know if this is indeed an error or an indication of > insufficient MSI resources. Even -ENOSPC would not tell much, since it > could be thrown from a lower level. Well, it's not hard to define what -ENOSPC should mean. > By contrast, with the tri-state return value we can distinguish and bail > out on errors right away. I kinda like that the available options are listed explicitly on the caller side (even if it ends up being a loop). It decreases the chance of the caller going "oh I didn't expect _that_" and generaly makes things easier to follow. > So the above is bit ungraceful for me. Combined with a possible waste in > logs (if we're hitting the same error) it is quite enough for me to keep > current the interfaces, at least for a time being. FWIW, I like Bjorn's suggestion. Given that this is mostly corner case thing, it isn't as important as the common ones but we might as well while we're at it. Thanks a lot for your work in the area! :) -- tejun -- 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
