Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1537935759-14754-1-git-send-email-suganath-prabu.subramani@broadcom.com>
 <1537935759-14754-2-git-send-email-suganath-prabu.subramani@broadcom.com>
 <20180926213241.GI28024@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
 <20180927070327.wvl5glb4c7gtjoa3@wunner.de> <20180927184746.GM28024@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
 <20180927190959.dio4qwti3i4accjm@wunner.de> <CA+RiK64EdoSngTzDMUP4xXNcZQa6KfyucsRw42+DUo3s+JPmVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181001204051.GD142872@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20181002140443.GA120535@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181002140443.GA120535@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
From:   Suganath Prabu Subramani <suganath-prabu.subramani@broadcom.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Oct 2018 12:14:40 +0530
Message-ID: <CA+RiK65MkxcHapivDqcGC5pM=OL8MHN3nk58_kxmS-hsKCGWkA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] mpt3sas: Introduce mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available
To:     helgaas@kernel.org
Cc:     lukas@wunner.de, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Sathya Prakash <Sathya.Prakash@broadcom.com>,
        Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@broadcom.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
        ruscur@russell.cc, sbobroff@linux.ibm.com,
        Oliver <oohall@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:34 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:40:51PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > I think the names "pci_device_is_present()" and
> > "mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available()" contribute to the problem
> > because they make promises that can't be kept -- all we can say is
> > that the device *was* present, but we know whether it is *still*
> > present.

Bjorn,

In the patch we are using '!' (i.e. not operation) of pci_device_is_present(),
which is logically same as pci_device_is absent, and it is
same for mpt3sas_base_pci_device_is_available().
My understanding is that, you want us to rename these functions for
better readability
Is that correct ?


> Oops, I meant "we DON'T know whether it is still present."
>
> > I think it would be better if the interfaces were something
> > like "pci_device_is_absent()" because that gives a result we can rely
> > on.  If that returns true, we know the device is definitely gone.
> >
> > Bjorn