On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We have same warning message for FLR and AF FLR and users can't > know which type of resets the PCI device is taking when there are > pending transactions. The patch makes them different for FLR and > AF FLR cases. > > Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/pci/pci.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c > index 625a4ac..2d708cd 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c > @@ -3144,7 +3144,7 @@ static int pcie_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe) > return 0; > > if (!pci_wait_for_pending_transaction(dev)) > - dev_err(&dev->dev, "transaction is not cleared; proceeding with reset anyway\n"); > + dev_err(&dev->dev, "Force FLR with pending transaction\n"); > > pcie_capability_set_word(dev, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL, PCI_EXP_DEVCTL_BCR_FLR); > > @@ -3178,7 +3178,7 @@ static int pci_af_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe) > PCI_AF_STATUS_TP << 8)) > goto clear; > > - dev_err(&dev->dev, "transaction is not cleared; proceeding with reset anyway\n"); > + dev_err(&dev->dev, "Force AF FLR with pending transaction\n"); Making the text different is fine, but I don't think "FLR" and "AF FLR" are meaningful except to extremely technical people. So I think "reset" needs to stay spelled out in the message. > clear: > pci_write_config_byte(dev, pos + PCI_AF_CTRL, PCI_AF_CTRL_FLR); > -- > 1.8.3.2 > -- 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
