Hi Alex,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:52:33PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> This patch is just a minor cleanup to go through and group all of the
> variables into one declaration instead of a long string of single
> declarations for each int. It also changes the direction for a couple
> loops as we are able to loop with less code this way as testing against 0
> can be done as a part of the decrement operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <aduyck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/pci/iov.c | 13 ++++---------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/iov.c b/drivers/pci/iov.c
> index cecc242c1af0..c0fc88fa7c4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/iov.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/iov.c
> @@ -241,15 +241,11 @@ int __weak pcibios_sriov_disable(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>
> static int sriov_enable(struct pci_dev *dev, int nr_virtfn)
> {
> - int rc;
> - int i;
> - int nres;
> u16 offset, stride, initial;
> struct resource *res;
> struct pci_dev *pdev;
> struct pci_sriov *iov = dev->sriov;
> - int bars = 0;
> - int bus;
> + int rc, i, nres, bars, bus;
I don't have a strong opinion on combining the declarations to one line,
and I would apply it if you wanted to do the same for the whole file
at once, in a patch by itself.
> if (!nr_virtfn)
> return 0;
> @@ -271,8 +267,7 @@ static int sriov_enable(struct pci_dev *dev, int nr_virtfn)
> if (!offset || (nr_virtfn > 1 && !stride))
> return -EIO;
>
> - nres = 0;
> - for (i = 0; i < PCI_SRIOV_NUM_BARS; i++) {
> + for (nres = 0, bars = 0, i = PCI_SRIOV_NUM_BARS; i--;) {
But I don't agree that this is easier to read. I suppose it could be
a tiny bit more efficient, but I think the benefit to the reader of
the usual "for (i = 0; i < limit; i++)" loop is larger.
> bars |= (1 << (i + PCI_IOV_RESOURCES));
> res = &dev->resource[i + PCI_IOV_RESOURCES];
> if (res->parent)
> @@ -366,13 +361,13 @@ err_pcibios:
>
> static void sriov_disable(struct pci_dev *dev)
> {
> - int i;
> struct pci_sriov *iov = dev->sriov;
> + int i = iov->num_VFs;
>
> if (!iov->num_VFs)
> return;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < iov->num_VFs; i++)
> + while (i--)
> virtfn_remove(dev, i, 0);
I do like the change to remove devices in the reverse order as we
added them. But I'm really partial to the way a "for" loop keeps all
the loop control in one spot. So I would apply a patch that made it
look like this:
for (i = iov->num_VFs - 1; i >= 0; i--)
virtfn_remove(dev, i, 0);
> pcibios_sriov_disable(dev);
>
> --
> 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
--
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
