Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Oct 2021 03:45:26 +0200 | From | Krzysztof Wilczyński <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PCI/sysfs: use NUMA_NO_NODE macro |
| |
[+cc Bjorn as he has strong code formatting preference in the PCI tree]
Hi Max,
> Use the proper macro instead of hard-coded (-1) value. > > Suggested-by: Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@linux.com> > Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
Thank you for taking care of this! Much appreciated!
> --- > drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c > index 7fb5cd17cc98..b21065222c87 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-sysfs.c > @@ -81,8 +81,8 @@ static ssize_t pci_dev_show_local_cpu(struct device *dev, bool list, > const struct cpumask *mask; > > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA > - mask = (dev_to_node(dev) == -1) ? cpu_online_mask : > - cpumask_of_node(dev_to_node(dev)); > + mask = (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE) ? cpu_online_mask : > + cpumask_of_node(dev_to_node(dev));
Oh this somewhat awkward indentation we have with this ternary now, and so I wonder if either:
mask = (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE) ? cpu_online_mask : cpumask_of_node(dev_to_node(dev));
Or, perhaps (yes, a few more lines):
if (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE) mask = cpu_online_mask; else mask = cpumask_of_node(node);
Would be easier on the eyes, so to speak. What do you think (not a problem if you don't want to change anything, thoguh)?
Thank you!
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@linux.com>
Krzysztof
| |