![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > There are functions where it is really _important_ to check the error > > return, because they return errors often enough - and the error case is > > something you have to do something about - that it's good to force people > > to be aware. > > > > But "pci_set_power_state()"? > > > > I don't think so. > > Btw, a perfect example of this is > > pci_set_power_state(pdev, 0); > > which is a very common thing to do in a driver init routine. And it has > absolutely _no_ valid return values: it either succeeds, or it doesn't, > and the only reason it wouldn't succeed is because the device doesn't > support power management in the first place (in which case it already > effectively is in state 0). > > In other words, there's nothing you can or should do about it. Testing the > return value is pointless. And thus adding a "must_check" is really really > wrong: it might make people do > > if (pci_set_power_state(pdev, 0)) > return -ENODEV > > which is actually actively the _wrong_ thing to do, and would just cause > old revisions of the chip that might not support PM capabilities to no > longer work. Funny you should say this -- exactly that problem _did_ arise. See http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-pci&m=112621842604724&w=2 pci_enable_device_bars() would an error when trying to initialize devices without PM support, because it started checking the return value from pci_set_power_state(). Alan Stern - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-10 23:09 [W:0.359 / U:0.040 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||