Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755849Ab3JIPy0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:54:26 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.216.48]:47679 "EHLO mail-qa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754410Ab3JIPyW (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:54:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:54:13 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Alexander Gordeev Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas , Ralf Baechle , Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Martin Schwidefsky , Ingo Molnar , Dan Williams , Andy King , Jon Mason , Matt Porter , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux390@de.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, iss_storagedev@hp.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-driver@qlogic.com, Solarflare linux maintainers , "VMware, Inc." , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 07/77] PCI/MSI: Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern Message-ID: <20131009155413.GD22495@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20131007181749.GB27396@htj.dyndns.org> <20131008074826.GD10669@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131008074826.GD10669@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1653 Lines: 44 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/