On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> will use it with pci_stop_and_remove_bus later.
>>>
>>> also remove __pci_remove_behind_bridge and pci_stop_behind_bridge.
>>>
>>> they are same except one take bridge and one take bus.
>>>
>>> and we already have pci_stop_bus_devices()
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/pci/remove.c | 28 +++++++++++-----------------
>>> 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/remove.c b/drivers/pci/remove.c
>>> index 243d59b..62c348c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/pci/remove.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/remove.c
>>> @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ void pci_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *pci_bus)
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_remove_bus);
>>>
>>> -static void __pci_remove_behind_bridge(struct pci_dev *dev);
>>> +static void __pci_remove_bus_devices(struct pci_bus *bus);
>>> /**
>>> * pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device - remove a PCI device and any children
>>> * @dev: the device to remove
>>> @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ void __pci_remove_bus_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>> if (dev->subordinate) {
>>> struct pci_bus *b = dev->subordinate;
>>>
>>> - __pci_remove_behind_bridge(dev);
>>> + __pci_remove_bus_devices(b);
>>> pci_remove_bus(b);
>>> dev->subordinate = NULL;
>>> }
>>> @@ -111,22 +111,12 @@ void pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>> __pci_remove_bus_device(dev);
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static void __pci_remove_behind_bridge(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>> +static void __pci_remove_bus_devices(struct pci_bus *bus)
>>> {
>>> struct list_head *l, *n;
>>>
>>> - if (dev->subordinate)
>>> - list_for_each_safe(l, n, &dev->subordinate->devices)
>>> - __pci_remove_bus_device(pci_dev_b(l));
>>> -}
>>> -
>>> -static void pci_stop_behind_bridge(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>> -{
>>> - struct list_head *l, *n;
>>> -
>>> - if (dev->subordinate)
>>> - list_for_each_safe(l, n, &dev->subordinate->devices)
>>> - pci_stop_bus_device(pci_dev_b(l));
>>> + list_for_each_safe(l, n, &bus->devices)
>>> + __pci_remove_bus_device(pci_dev_b(l));
>>
>> Use list_for_each_entry_safe() so you don't need pci_dev_b().
>
> just want to keep the patch to simple, and looks like just name renaming.
>
> also use list_for_each_safe instead of list_for_each_entry_safe
>
> could have less conversion.
Sorry, I didn't understand the above.
It is OK to improve code as you change it :) list_for_each_entry() is
clearly an improvement over list_for_each() + some conversion macro.
>>> }
>>>
>>> static void pci_stop_bus_devices(struct pci_bus *bus)
>>> @@ -158,8 +148,12 @@ static void pci_stop_bus_devices(struct pci_bus *bus)
>>> */
>>> void pci_stop_and_remove_behind_bridge(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>> {
>>> - pci_stop_behind_bridge(dev);
>>> - __pci_remove_behind_bridge(dev);
>>> + struct pci_bus *bus = dev->subordinate;
>>> +
>>> + if (bus) {
>>
>> Don't check "bus" here. If the caller screws up and passes a
>> non-bridge pointer, I want to learn about it rather than ignore it.
>
> old code have that
> if (dev->subordinate)
>
> checking.
Removing a test that could silently cover a programming error is also
an improvement.
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
