On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:38:09PM +0000, shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>
snip
>
> +static int cxl_ps_get_attrs(struct cxl_patrol_scrub_context *cxl_ps_ctx,
> + struct cxl_memdev_ps_params *params)
> +{
> + struct cxl_mailbox *cxl_mbox;
> + struct cxl_memdev *cxlmd;
> + u16 min_scrub_cycle = 0;
> + int i, ret;
> +
> + if (cxl_ps_ctx->cxlr) {
> + struct cxl_region *cxlr = cxl_ps_ctx->cxlr;
> + struct cxl_region_params *p = &cxlr->params;
> +
> + ret = cxl_hold_region_and_dpa();
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + for (i = p->interleave_ways - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> + struct cxl_endpoint_decoder *cxled = p->targets[i];
> +
Hi Shiju,
Although not functionally wrong, the above for loop caught my eye.
p->nr_targets is a better loop initializer when walking p->targets[]
(at this point nr_targets better equal interleave ways but lets use
the count intended for the array being walked)
Is there a reason to walk in reverse? This seems clearer:
for (i = 0; i < p->nr_targets; i++)
The same for loop header repeats below in:
cxl_ps_set_attrs()
cxl_region_scrub_init()
If you change for one, change for all.
snip
> +static int cxl_memdev_scrub_init(struct cxl_memdev *cxlmd,
> + struct edac_dev_feature *ras_feature, u8 scrub_inst)
> +{
> + struct cxl_patrol_scrub_context *cxl_ps_ctx;
> + struct cxl_feat_entry *feat_entry;
> +
> + feat_entry = cxl_get_feature_entry(cxlmd->cxlds, &CXL_FEAT_PATROL_SCRUB_UUID);
> + if (IS_ERR(feat_entry))
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
Along w patch 1 comment, perhaps just check for (!feat_entry) here
and in a couple of other places below.
snip
>
