From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754458Ab0ALRji (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:39:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754300Ab0ALRjg (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:39:36 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:48370 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754158Ab0ALRjg (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:39:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:39:47 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Tilman Schmidt Cc: Stephen Rothwell , LKML , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Karsten Keil , isdn4linux@listserv.isdn4linux.de Subject: Re: Can we remove pci_find_device() yet? Message-ID: <20100112173947.GA7784@suse.de> References: <20100108112236.462a3da2.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100108044646.GC6611@suse.de> <4B4B802A.2010709@imap.cc> <20100111200136.GA29955@suse.de> <4B4CA666.1050505@imap.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B4CA666.1050505@imap.cc> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 05:42:14PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > Am 2010-01-11 21:01 schrieb Greg KH: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 08:46:50PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > >> > >> Just an idea - as a stopgap measure, couldn't pci_find_device() be made > >> a private function of the HiSax drivers? That way, the remainder of the > >> kernel won't be polluted by it anymore, and the PCI_LEGACY config option > >> can be dropped. Something like this quick and dirty hack: > > > > Close, but if you do this, please name the function > > hisax_find_pci_device() or something, and change the drivers to use it > > Sorry, but no. That would drag me into the checkpatch.pl swamp, > a place I know well enough by now to avoid it whenever possible. I don't understand, why? > Many of the calls to pci_find_device() have checkpatch problems > which of course do not go away by just substituting another > function name, so I would be obliged to restructure all those > call sites by hand for the sake of "not introducing new code > with checkpatch problems". BTDT. No you would not, don't be crazy. Modfying a single line to rename a function from one thing to another could never be decreed as a "don't add bad code". And if someone says it is, well, you just found someone who doesn't know what they are doing :) > So I'll drop that idea. If someone else wants to pick it up, > feel free to do so. Please continue with this idea, it's sane, and valid. thanks, greg k-h