On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:00:21PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 09:16:44AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >> The return value of the pci_find_(ext_)capability is the position of this >> Cap. After previous two patches clean up, the position returned is an >> unsigned value. Only 0 indicates the Cap is not presented. >> >> This patch consolidates the form of check from (pos <= 0)to (!pos). >> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Applied to pci/misc with changelog as below. > >It seems pretty clear to me that pci_find_capability() returns either 0 or >a u8 value. pci_find_ext_capability() does return an int. It looks to me >like it can never be negative, but if you wanted it to be even more clear, >you could easily change just pci_find_next_ext_capability() to use a u16 >for "pos". That would be very simple and wouldn't change any interfaces. pci_find_capability() will return either 0 or a u8 value, while in the code the return value is an "int" type. So for the first sight, it may not that immediate. The same as pci_find_ext_capability(). This is the reason for patch 2/3. The purpose is to make the return type reflect the value it will return. Patch 3 does exactly what you said, use a u16 for "pos" in pci_find_next_ext_capability(). > >commit d5fa86074987b1b5fcbfba8c9315e75ff7262f71 >Author: Wei Yang <weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Date: Tue Jun 30 09:16:44 2015 +0800 > > PCI: Simplify pci_find_(ext_)capability() return value checks > > The return value of the pci_find_(ext_)capability() is either zero or the > position of a capability. It is never negative. > > This patch consolidates the form of check from (pos <= 0) to (!pos). > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Richard Yang Help you, Help me -- 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
