lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 14/23] PCI: add __pci_remove_bus_devices()
    On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
    > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> wrote:
    >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
    >>> will use it with pci_stop_and_remove_bus later.
    >>>
    >>> also remove __pci_remove_behind_bridge and pci_stop_behind_bridge.
    >>>
    >>> they are same except one take bridge and one take bus.
    >>>
    >>> and we already have pci_stop_bus_devices()
    >>>
    >>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
    >>> ---
    >>>  drivers/pci/remove.c |   28 +++++++++++-----------------
    >>>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
    >>>
    >>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/remove.c b/drivers/pci/remove.c
    >>> index 243d59b..62c348c 100644
    >>> --- a/drivers/pci/remove.c
    >>> +++ b/drivers/pci/remove.c
    >>> @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ void pci_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *pci_bus)
    >>>  }
    >>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_remove_bus);
    >>>
    >>> -static void __pci_remove_behind_bridge(struct pci_dev *dev);
    >>> +static void __pci_remove_bus_devices(struct pci_bus *bus);
    >>>  /**
    >>>  * pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device - remove a PCI device and any children
    >>>  * @dev: the device to remove
    >>> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ void __pci_remove_bus_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
    >>>        if (dev->subordinate) {
    >>>                struct pci_bus *b = dev->subordinate;
    >>>
    >>> -               __pci_remove_behind_bridge(dev);
    >>> +               __pci_remove_bus_devices(b);
    >>>                pci_remove_bus(b);
    >>>                dev->subordinate = NULL;
    >>>        }
    >>> @@ -111,22 +111,12 @@ void pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
    >>>        __pci_remove_bus_device(dev);
    >>>  }
    >>>
    >>> -static void __pci_remove_behind_bridge(struct pci_dev *dev)
    >>> +static void __pci_remove_bus_devices(struct pci_bus *bus)
    >>>  {
    >>>        struct list_head *l, *n;
    >>>
    >>> -       if (dev->subordinate)
    >>> -               list_for_each_safe(l, n, &dev->subordinate->devices)
    >>> -                       __pci_remove_bus_device(pci_dev_b(l));
    >>> -}
    >>> -
    >>> -static void pci_stop_behind_bridge(struct pci_dev *dev)
    >>> -{
    >>> -       struct list_head *l, *n;
    >>> -
    >>> -       if (dev->subordinate)
    >>> -               list_for_each_safe(l, n, &dev->subordinate->devices)
    >>> -                       pci_stop_bus_device(pci_dev_b(l));
    >>> +       list_for_each_safe(l, n, &bus->devices)
    >>> +               __pci_remove_bus_device(pci_dev_b(l));
    >>
    >> Use list_for_each_entry_safe() so you don't need pci_dev_b().
    >
    > just want to keep the patch to simple, and looks like just name renaming.
    >
    > also use list_for_each_safe instead of list_for_each_entry_safe
    >
    > could have less conversion.

    Sorry, I didn't understand the above.

    It is OK to improve code as you change it :) list_for_each_entry() is
    clearly an improvement over list_for_each() + some conversion macro.

    >>>  }
    >>>
    >>>  static void pci_stop_bus_devices(struct pci_bus *bus)
    >>> @@ -158,8 +148,12 @@ static void pci_stop_bus_devices(struct pci_bus *bus)
    >>>  */
    >>>  void pci_stop_and_remove_behind_bridge(struct pci_dev *dev)
    >>>  {
    >>> -       pci_stop_behind_bridge(dev);
    >>> -       __pci_remove_behind_bridge(dev);
    >>> +       struct pci_bus *bus = dev->subordinate;
    >>> +
    >>> +       if (bus) {
    >>
    >> Don't check "bus" here.  If the caller screws up and passes a
    >> non-bridge pointer, I want to learn about it rather than ignore it.
    >
    > old code have that
    >           if (dev->subordinate)
    >
    > checking.

    Removing a test that could silently cover a programming error is also
    an improvement.

    Bjorn
    --
    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: 2012-03-09 18:31    [W:0.029 / U:3.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site