[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v5 10/11] PCI: Replace pci_dev::driver usage by pci_dev::dev.driver
On 29/9/21 11:43 pm, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:> I'm not a huge fan either, I used it to keep the control flow as is and without introducing several calls to to_pci_driver. The whole code looks as follows: list_for_each_entry(afu_dev, &afu->phb->bus->devices, bus_list) { struct pci_driver *afu_drv; if (afu_dev->dev.driver && (afu_drv = to_pci_driver(afu_dev->dev.driver))->err_handler && afu_drv->err_handler->resume) afu_drv->err_handler->resume(afu_dev); } Without assignment in the if it could look as follows: list_for_each_entry(afu_dev, &afu->phb->bus->devices, bus_list) { struct pci_driver *afu_drv; if (!afu_dev->dev.driver) continue; afu_drv = to_pci_driver(afu_dev->dev.driver)); if (afu_drv->err_handler && afu_drv->err_handler->resume) afu_drv->err_handler->resume(afu_dev); } Fine for me. This looks fine.As an aside while writing my email I discovered the existence of container_of_safe(), a version of container_of() that handles the null and err ptr cases... if to_pci_driver() used that, the null check in the caller could be moved until after the to_pci_driver() call which would be neater. But then, grep tells me that container_of_safe() is used precisely zero times in the entire tree. Interesting. (Sidenote: What happens if the device is unbound directly after the check for afu_dev->dev.driver? This is a problem the old code had, too (assuming it is a real problem, didn't check deeply).) Looking at any of the cxl PCI error handling paths brings back nightmares from a few years ago... Fred: I wonder if we need to add a lock here? -- Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra ajd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx IBM Australia Limited
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |