[PATCH RFC 07/77] PCI/MSI: Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern
Tejun Heo
tj at kernel.org
Wed Oct 9 11:54:13 EDT 2013
Hello, Alexander.
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 09:48:26AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > If there are many which duplicate the above pattern, it'd probably be
> > worthwhile to provide a helper? It's usually a good idea to reduce
> > the amount of boilerplate code in drivers.
>
> I wanted to limit discussion in v1 to as little changes as possible.
> I 'planned' those helper(s) for a separate effort if/when the most
> important change is accepted and soaked a bit.
The thing is doing it this way generates more churns and noises. Once
the simpler ones live behind a wrapper which can be built on the
existing interface, we can have both reduced cost and more latitude on
the complex cases.
> > If we do things this way, it breaks all drivers using this interface
> > until they're converted, right?
>
> Right. And the rest of the series does it.
Which breaks bisection which we shouldn't do.
> > Also, it probably isn't the best idea
> > to flip the behavior like this as this can go completely unnoticed (no
> > compiler warning or anything, the same function just behaves
> > differently). Maybe it'd be a better idea to introduce a simpler
> > interface that most can be converted to?
>
> Well, an *other* interface is a good idea. What do you mean with the
> simpler here?
I'm still talking about a simpler wrapper for common cases, which is
the important part anyway.
Thanks.
--
tejun
More information about the Linux-nvme
mailing list