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;
To:     Kelvin.Cao@microchip.com, helgaas@kernel.org
Cc:     kurt.schwemmer@microsemi.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
        kelvincao@outlook.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
References: <20211001201822.GA962472@bhelgaas>
 <2f7b4e6debbf7156a4da26bad0373d9df9667e66.camel@microchip.com>
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Message-ID: <1dfe4c62-63d2-e2e0-c7c0-e5cd2922176a@deltatee.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Oct 2021 17:52:53 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2f7b4e6debbf7156a4da26bad0373d9df9667e66.camel@microchip.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-CA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] PCI/switchtec: Error out MRPC execution when no GAS
 access
Precedence: bulk


On 2021-10-01 4:58 p.m., Kelvin.Cao@microchip.com wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-10-01 at 15:18 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Didn't notice this before, but the "check_access()" name is not very
>> helpful because it doesn't give a clue about what the return value
>> means.  Does 0 mean no error?  Does 1 mean no error?  From reading
>> the
>> implementation, I can see that 0 is actually the error case, but I
>> can't tell from the name.
> 
> Yes, will improve the naming, like change it to "has_gas_access()" in
> v2 if a v2 patchset is preferred.

I'd keep the GAS name out of the kernel. How about something along the
lines of is_firmware_running()? Maybe a comment for the function would
be good as well.

Logan