On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 3:14 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 02:11:03PM -0800, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> > On 3/12/21 1:33 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 10:34:10PM -0800, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > > > +bool is_dpc_reset_active(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct pci_host_bridge *host = pci_find_host_bridge(dev->bus);
> > > > + u16 status;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!dev->dpc_cap)
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If DPC is owned by firmware and EDR is not supported, there is
> > > > + * no race between hotplug and DPC recovery handler. So return
> > > > + * false.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (!host->native_dpc && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PCIE_EDR))
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (atomic_read_acquire(&dev->dpc_reset_active))
> > > > + return true;
> > > > +
> > > > + pci_read_config_word(dev, dev->dpc_cap + PCI_EXP_DPC_STATUS, &status);
> > > > +
> > > > + return !!(status & PCI_EXP_DPC_STATUS_TRIGGER);
> > >
> > > I know it's somewhat common in drivers/pci/, but I'm not really a
> > > big fan of "!!".
> > I can change it to use ternary operator.
> > (status & PCI_EXP_DPC_STATUS_TRIGGER) ? true : false;
>
> Ternary isn't terrible, but what's wrong with:
>
> if (status & PCI_EXP_DPC_STATUS_TRIGGER)
> return true;
> return false;
It was the branch I was trying to get rid of by recommending !!, how about:
return (status & PCI_EXP_DPC_STATUS_TRIGGER) == PCI_EXP_DPC_STATUS_TRIGGER;
...just so I know the style preference for future drivers/pci/ work?
That at least matches the pattern in the mm helpers that test pte
bits.
>
> which matches the style of the rest of the function.
>
> Looking at this again, we return "true" if either dpc_reset_active or
> PCI_EXP_DPC_STATUS_TRIGGER. I haven't worked this all out, but that
> pattern feels racy. I guess the thought is that if
> PCI_EXP_DPC_STATUS_TRIGGER is set, dpc_reset_link() will be invoked
> soon and we don't want to interfere?
Right, and when the trigger is clear then dpc_reset_active keeps
holding off the hotplug driver until the dpc reset completes in
polling for the link up event.
