On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:31:33 -0600
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -struct pci_cap_saved_state {
> - struct hlist_node next;
> +struct pci_cap_saved {
> char cap_nr;
> + unsigned int size;
> u32 data[0];
> };
>
> +struct pci_cap_saved_state {
> + struct hlist_node next;
> + struct pci_cap_saved saved;
> +};
> +
> struct pcie_link_state;
> struct pci_vpd;
> struct pci_sriov;
> @@ -366,7 +371,7 @@ static inline struct pci_cap_saved_state *pci_find_saved_cap(
> struct hlist_node *pos;
>
> hlist_for_each_entry(tmp, pos, &pci_dev->saved_cap_space, next) {
> - if (tmp->cap_nr == cap)
> + if (tmp->saved.cap_nr == cap)
> return tmp;
> }
> return NULL;
Looks pretty good in general. But I think the naming makes it harder
to read than it ought to be.
So we have a pci_cap_saved_state, which implies capability info, and
that's fine.
But pci_cap_saved doesn't communicate much; maybe pci_cap_data or
pci_cap_saved_data would be better?
Thanks,
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
