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:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:55:24 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     Amey Narkhede <ameynarkhede03@gmail.com>
Cc:     alex.williamson@redhat.com,
        Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kw@linux.com, Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@nvidia.com>,
        Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 8/8] PCI: Change the type of probe argument in reset
 functions
Message-ID: <20210728175524.GA834270@bjorn-Precision-5520>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210728173514.77yiv2vjvjpf6ao5@archlinux>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:05:14PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> On 21/07/27 05:22PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 06:08:13PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> > > Introduce a new enum pci_reset_mode_t to make the context of probe argument
> > > in reset functions clear and the code easier to read.  Change the type of
> > > probe argument in functions which implement reset methods from int to
> > > pci_reset_mode_t to make the intent clear.
> >
> > Not sure adding an enum and a PCI_RESET_MODE_MAX seems worth it to me.
> > It's really a boolean parameter, and I'd be happy to change it to a
> > bool.  But I don't think it's worth checking against
> > PCI_RESET_MODE_MAX unless we need more than two options.
> >
> Is it okay to use PCI_RESET_PROBE and PCI_RESET_DO_RESET as bool.
> That would be less confusing than directly using true/false.

You mean like this?

  #define PCI_RESET_DO_RESET  false
  #define PCI_RESET_PROBE     true

I don't think there's a huge amount of value, but I guess that's OK as
long as it's confined to drivers/pci/, i.e., not exposed via
include/linux/pci.h.