[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240503204910.GA1602543@bhelgaas>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 15:49:10 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] resource: Rename find_resource() to
find_empty_resource_slot()
On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 06:57:02PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> Rename find_resource() to find_empty_resource_slot() to better describe
> what the functions does. This is a preparation for exposing it beyond
> resource.c which is needed by PCI core. Also rename the __ variant to
> match the names.
I wonder if "find_resource_space()" or "find_available_resource()"
would be better than "_slot"?
"Slot" *is* already used a few times in kernel/resource.c, but in most
cases I think it refers to a "resource", and find_resource() basically
returns a filled-in struct resource.
And of course "slot" suggests something entirely different in the PCI
context.
> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> kernel/resource.c | 19 +++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/resource.c b/kernel/resource.c
> index 866ef3663a0b..94f67005e1e2 100644
> --- a/kernel/resource.c
> +++ b/kernel/resource.c
> @@ -574,10 +574,9 @@ static void resource_clip(struct resource *res, resource_size_t min,
> * Find empty slot in the resource tree with the given range and
> * alignment constraints
> */
> -static int __find_resource(struct resource *root, struct resource *old,
> - struct resource *new,
> - resource_size_t size,
> - struct resource_constraint *constraint)
> +static int __find_empty_resource_slot(struct resource *root, struct resource *old,
> + struct resource *new, resource_size_t size,
> + struct resource_constraint *constraint)
> {
> struct resource *this = root->child;
> struct resource tmp = *new, avail, alloc;
> @@ -633,11 +632,11 @@ next: if (!this || this->end == root->end)
> /*
> * Find empty slot in the resource tree given range and alignment.
> */
> -static int find_resource(struct resource *root, struct resource *new,
> - resource_size_t size,
> - struct resource_constraint *constraint)
> +static int find_empty_resource_slot(struct resource *root, struct resource *new,
> + resource_size_t size,
> + struct resource_constraint *constraint)
> {
> - return __find_resource(root, NULL, new, size, constraint);
> + return __find_empty_resource_slot(root, NULL, new, size, constraint);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -660,7 +659,7 @@ static int reallocate_resource(struct resource *root, struct resource *old,
>
> write_lock(&resource_lock);
>
> - if ((err = __find_resource(root, old, &new, newsize, constraint)))
> + if ((err = __find_empty_resource_slot(root, old, &new, newsize, constraint)))
> goto out;
>
> if (resource_contains(&new, old)) {
> @@ -729,7 +728,7 @@ int allocate_resource(struct resource *root, struct resource *new,
> }
>
> write_lock(&resource_lock);
> - err = find_resource(root, new, size, &constraint);
> + err = find_empty_resource_slot(root, new, size, &constraint);
> if (err >= 0 && __request_resource(root, new))
> err = -EBUSY;
> write_unlock(&resource_lock);
> --
> 2.30.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists