On 2018-05-11 18:28, Lukas Wunner wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 06:43:24AM -0400, Oza Pawandeep wrote:+void pcie_do_fatal_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev) +{ + struct pci_dev *udev; + struct pci_bus *parent; + struct pci_dev *pdev, *temp; + pci_ers_result_t result = PCI_ERS_RESULT_RECOVERED; + struct aer_broadcast_data result_data; + + if (dev->hdr_type == PCI_HEADER_TYPE_BRIDGE) + udev = dev; + else + udev = dev->bus->self; + + parent = udev->subordinate; + pci_lock_rescan_remove(); + list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(pdev, temp, &parent->devices, + bus_list) { + pci_dev_get(pdev); + pci_dev_set_disconnected(pdev, NULL); + if (pci_has_subordinate(pdev)) + pci_walk_bus(pdev->subordinate, + pci_dev_set_disconnected, NULL); + pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device(pdev); + pci_dev_put(pdev); + }Any reason not to simply call pci_walk_bus(udev->subordinate, pci_dev_set_disconnected, NULL); before the list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse() iteration, instead of calling it for each device on the subordinate bus and for each device's children? Should be semantically identical, saves 3 LoC and saves wasted cycles of acquiring pci_bus_sem over and over again for each device on the subordinate bus. Thanks, Lukas
Well this is borrowed code from DPC driver, hence I thought to keep the same. but to me it looks like its taking care of PCIe switch where is goes through all the subordinates, and which could turn out to be more swicthes down the line, and son on...
it goes all the way down to the tree Am I missing something here ?
