Hi Niklas,
when comparing pci_bus_remove_resource with pci_bus_remove_resources,
I find that the "single-resource" variant might be ending too early.
On Fri, 2023-02-03 at 12:48 +0100, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> +void pci_bus_remove_resource(struct pci_bus *bus, struct resource
> *res)
> +{
> + struct pci_bus_resource *bus_res, *tmp;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < PCI_BRIDGE_RESOURCE_NUM; i++) {
> + if (bus->resource[i] == res) {
> + bus->resource[i] = NULL;
> + return;
^^^^^^^
Did you mean to "break" here, rather than end the routine?
> + }
> + }
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(bus_res, tmp, &bus->resources, list)
> {
> + if (bus_res->res == res) {
> + list_del(&bus_res->list);
> + kfree(bus_res);
> + return;
^^^^^^^
Here "break" and "return" have the same effect, but "break" would be
"symmetric".
> + }
> + }
> + return;
> +
> +}
While this might be a nit, I'd like to better separate the "single-
resource" variant's name. How about pci_bus_remove_one_resource - I
know it's getting long...
Thanks,
Gerd
