Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965051AbVKGRzu (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:55:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965056AbVKGRzu (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:55:50 -0500 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:38833 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965051AbVKGRzt (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:55:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:55:41 -0600 To: Paul Mackerras Cc: Greg KH , linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, johnrose@austin.ibm.com, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, bluesmoke-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/42]: PCI: PCI Error reporting callbacks Message-ID: <20051107175541.GB19593@austin.ibm.com> References: <20051103235918.GA25616@mail.gnucash.org> <20051104005035.GA26929@mail.gnucash.org> <20051105061114.GA27016@kroah.com> <17262.37107.857718.184055@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17262.37107.857718.184055@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: linas Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2188 Lines: 64 On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 10:25:39AM +1100, Paul Mackerras was heard to remark: > Greg KH writes: > > > > +enum pcierr_result { > > > + PCIERR_RESULT_NONE=0, /* no result/none/not supported in device driver */ > > > + PCIERR_RESULT_CAN_RECOVER=1, /* Device driver can recover without slot reset */ > > > + PCIERR_RESULT_NEED_RESET, /* Device driver wants slot to be reset. */ > > > + PCIERR_RESULT_DISCONNECT, /* Device has completely failed, is unrecoverable */ > > > + PCIERR_RESULT_RECOVERED, /* Device driver is fully recovered and operational */ > > > +}; > > > > No, do not create new types of error or return codes. Use the standard > > -EFOO values. You can document what they should each return, and mean, > > but do not create new codes. > > Actually, these are not error or return codes, but rather requested > actions Yes. > (maybe somewhat misnamed). As to naming, my mind went blank on coming up with a good name, and the results was a poor name. I now note that "EDAC" ("Error Detection ad Correction") is now taken. How about "PECS" ("PCI Error Correction System") ? I guess "PCI Error Detection And Recovery System" (PEDERAST) might have an inappropriate set of connotations. > We can map them on to -EFOO values > but it will be rather strained (-ECONNRESET for "please reset the > slot", anyone? :). Yes, that would only lead to confusion. > > Also, you create an enum, but yet do not use it in your function > > callback definition, which means you really didn't want to create it in > > the first place... > > Yes, they could be #defines. In one incarnation, they were #defines. The enum was supposed to be the return value of the error notification callbacks. I can prepare a new patch: would you prefer: 1) lose typing: #defines and int return value? 2) strong typing: enum and enum return value? I often prefer strong typing. And do you want a patch now, or later? --linas - 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/