Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 25 May 2021 17:17:25 +0200
From:   Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>
To:     Amey Narkhede <ameynarkhede03@gmail.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, alex.williamson@redhat.com,
        raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 2/7] PCI: Add pcie_reset_flr to follow calling
 convention of other reset methods
Message-ID: <20210525151725.GA80163@rocinante.localdomain>
References: <20210519235426.99728-1-ameynarkhede03@gmail.com>
 <20210519235426.99728-3-ameynarkhede03@gmail.com>
 <20210520150526.GB641812@rocinante.localdomain>
 <20210524144814.rqgvbaawdxbdwio4@archlinux>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210524144814.rqgvbaawdxbdwio4@archlinux>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Amey,

Sorry for late reply!

[...]
> > Similarly to my suggestion in the first patch in the series, perhaps
> > using a boolean here would be an option.
> >
> > Having said that, the following existing functions aren't doing it, so
> > for the sake of keeping things consistent it might not be the best
> > option, as per:
> >
> >  static int pci_af_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe)
> >  int nvme_disable_and_flr(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe)
> >
> > Krzysztof
>
> All the functions which implement different types of resets including
> quirks have ...reset(struct pci_dev *dev, int probe) signature.
> Should I modify all of them?

Might not be worth it to change anything then, especially if the other
functions there already use an integer argument to enable or disable the
problem or something else.  At least no in this series.

	Krzysztof