Hello,
Elias Oltmanns wrote:
>> - ata_port_for_each_link(link, ap) {
>> - ata_link_for_each_dev(dev, link)
>> + ata_for_each_link(link, ap, EDGE) {
>> + ata_for_each_dev(dev, link, ALL)
>
> Where did these short forms (EDGE, ALL) spring from? Does this code even
> compile?
+#define ata_for_each_link(link, ap, mode) \
+ for ((link) = ata_link_next(NULL, (ap), ATA_LITER_##mode); (link); \
+ (link) = ata_link_next((link), (ap), ATA_LITER_##mode))
+
+#define ata_for_each_dev(dev, link, mode) \
+ for ((dev) = ata_dev_next(NULL, (link), ATA_DITER_##mode); (dev); \
+ (dev) = ata_dev_next((dev), (link), ATA_DITER_##mode))
>> @@ -2891,7 +2881,7 @@ static int ata_link_nr_vacant(struct ata
>> struct ata_device *dev;
>> int cnt = 0;
>>
>> - ata_link_for_each_dev(dev, link)
>> + ata_for_each_dev(dev, link, ALL)
>> if (dev->class == ATA_DEV_UNKNOWN)
>> cnt++;
>> return cnt;
>
> What about making the two above (ata_link_nr_*()) static inline while
> you are at it? Or is this another one of those cases where the compiler
> knows best anyway?
Yeah, it's a static function used only in single place. Should be
pretty straight forward for the compiler and even if it fails to
notice it, it doesn't hurt at all.
> [...]
>> Index: work/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- work.orig/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
>> +++ work/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
> [...]
>> @@ -3254,9 +3254,9 @@ void ata_scsi_scan_host(struct ata_port
>> * failure occurred, scan would have failed silently. Check
>> * whether all devices are attached.
>> */
>> - ata_port_for_each_link(link, ap) {
>> - ata_link_for_each_dev(dev, link) {
>> - if (ata_dev_enabled(dev) && !dev->sdev)
>> + ata_for_each_link(link, ap, EDGE) {
>> + ata_for_each_dev(dev, link, ENABLED) {
>> + if (!dev->sdev)
>> goto exit_loop;
>> }
>> }
>
> Getting rid of those braces would make things even cleaner in my
> opinion. (That's my nit picking since Sergei picked on that comment
> formatting issue shortly before I was going to ;-) ).
Yeah, maybe. I don't know. The reason why I added braces there in
the first place was because emacs has some problem dealing with nested
non-standard looping constructs.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
