Message-ID: <20211015164653.GA2108651@bhelgaas>
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:46:53 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Donnellan <ajd@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Fiona Trahe <fiona.trahe@...el.com>,
        Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jack Xu <jack.xu@...el.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Marco Chiappero <marco.chiappero@...el.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
        Michael Buesch <m@...s.ch>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        Russell Currey <ruscur@...sell.cc>,
        Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
        Sathya Prakash <sathya.prakash@...adcom.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...adcom.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Suganath Prabu Subramani 
        <suganath-prabu.subramani@...adcom.com>,
        Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@...vell.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tomaszx Kowalik <tomaszx.kowalik@...el.com>,
        Vadym Kochan <vkochan@...vell.com>,
        Wojciech Ziemba <wojciech.ziemba@...el.com>,
        Yisen Zhuang <yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>,
        Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>,
        linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC PA SEMI PWRFICIENT" 
        <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        USB <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:TI WILINK WIRELES..." <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...adcom.com, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        oss-drivers@...igine.com, qat-linux@...el.com,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/11] PCI: Drop duplicated tracking of a pci_dev's
 bound driver

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 04:23:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 06:33:56AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:26:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 2:33 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:59:24PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> > > > +       return drv && drv->resume ?
> > > > +                       drv->resume(pci_dev) : pci_pm_reenable_device(pci_dev);
> > > 
> > > One line?
> > 
> > I don't think I touched that line.
> 
> Then why they are both in + section?

They're both in the + section of the interdiff because Uwe's v6 patch
looks like this:

  static int pci_legacy_resume(struct device *dev)
  {
          struct pci_dev *pci_dev = to_pci_dev(dev);
  -       return drv && drv->resume ?
  -                       drv->resume(pci_dev) : pci_pm_reenable_device(pci_dev);
  +       if (pci_dev->dev.driver) {
  +               struct pci_driver *drv = to_pci_driver(pci_dev->dev.driver);
  +
  +               if (drv->resume)
  +                       return drv->resume(pci_dev);
  +       }
  +
  +       return pci_pm_reenable_device(pci_dev);

and my revision looks like this:

   static int pci_legacy_resume(struct device *dev)
   {
	  struct pci_dev *pci_dev = to_pci_dev(dev);
  -       struct pci_driver *drv = pci_dev->driver;
  +       struct pci_driver *drv = to_pci_driver(dev->driver);

so compared to Uwe's v6, I restored that section to the original code.
My goal here was to make the patch as simple and easy to review as
possible.

> > > > +       struct pci_driver *drv = to_pci_driver(dev->dev.driver);
> > > >         const struct pci_error_handlers *err_handler =
> > > > -                       dev->dev.driver ? to_pci_driver(dev->dev.driver)->err_handler : NULL;
> > > > +                       drv ? drv->err_handler : NULL;
> > > 
> > > Isn't dev->driver == to_pci_driver(dev->dev.driver)?
> > 
> > Yes, I think so, but not sure what you're getting at here, can you
> > elaborate?
> 
> Getting pointer from another pointer seems waste of resources, why we
> can't simply
> 
> 	struct pci_driver *drv = dev->driver;

I think this is in pci_dev_save_and_disable(), and "dev" here is a
struct pci_dev *.  We're removing the dev->driver member.  Let me know
if I'm still missing something.

> > > > -                               "bad request in aer recovery "
> > > > -                               "operation!\n");
> > > > +                               "bad request in AER recovery operation!\n");

> > > Stray change? Or is it in a separate patch in your tree?
> > 
> > Could be skipped.  The string now fits on one line so I combined it to
> > make it more greppable.
> 
> This is inconsistency in your changes, in one case you are objecting of
> doing something close to the changed lines, in the other you are doing
> unrelated change.

You're right, this didn't make much sense in that patch.  I moved the
line join to the previous patch, which unindented this section and
made space for this to fit on one line.  Here's the revised commit:

  https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git/commit/?id=34ab316d7287

Powered by blists - more mailing lists