From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:15:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:14:57 -0500 Received: from tetsuo.zabbo.net ([204.138.55.44]:22791 "HELO tetsuo.zabbo.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:14:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:14:50 -0500 From: Zach Brown To: Jeff Garzik Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] pci_dma_set_mask() Message-ID: <20010228161450.A25553@tetsuo.zabbo.net> In-Reply-To: <20010228103727.I23735@tetsuo.zabbo.net> <3A9D26A2.14563DE1@mandrakesoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3A9D26A2.14563DE1@mandrakesoft.com>; from jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com on Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:26:10AM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > pci_dma_supported has a boolean return, but the kernel norm is to return > zero on success, and -EFOO on error. I like your proposal with the *nod* I just followed pci_dma_supported(). > extremely minor nit that I think pci_set_dma_mask should return ENODEV > or EIO or something on error, and zero on success. I agree, though I'd like to leave the decision up to people who live and breathe this stuff. please feel free to make minor adjustments and submit :) - z