On Friday, July 1, 2016 3:14:47 PM CEST Liviu Dudau wrote:
>
> I'm confused. Why are we butchering the old pci_alloc_host_bridge() function
> to then go back and add re-add it in a different form?
Good point, we could just keep the existing implementation and make it
an exported function without the bus argument.
> The old pci_alloc_host_bridge() was doing mostly what the above
> function does minus the bridge->private line. And the &bridge[1] construct
> could very well be pointing to the next struct pci_host_bridge aligned address,
> which means parts of priv area are ignored.
I don't know what you mean with that. Would you rather write this as?
bridge->private = bridge + 1;
or leave it out and add a helper function
void *pci_host_bridge_private(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge)
{
return &bridge[1];
}
or do you mean we should have extra alignment in there so the
private pointer has a minimum alignment higher than the
alignment of struct pci_host_bridge?
I'm absolutely fine with any of those suggestions, whichever
makes the nicest API.
Arnd
--
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
