On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
ok, will change that.
>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> 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.
just want to cause regression.
also it is legal that some one call it for a bridge without subordinate.
Yinghai
--
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
