Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 16 Aug 2019 08:31:47 -0500
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] x86/PCI: Loop using PCI_STD_NUM_BARS
Message-ID: <20190816133147.GM253360@google.com>
References: <20190816092437.31846-1-efremov@linux.com>
 <20190816092437.31846-4-efremov@linux.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908161131400.1873@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908161131400.1873@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:32:41AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019, Denis Efremov wrote:
> 
> > Refactor loops to use 'i < PCI_STD_NUM_BARS' instead of
> > 'i <= PCI_STD_RESOURCE_END'.
> 
> Please describe the WHY not the WHAT. I can see the WHAT from the patch
> itself, but I can't figure out WHY.

Good point; the WHY is to use idiomatic C style and avoid
the fencepost error of using "i < PCI_STD_RESOURCE_END"
when "i <= PCI_STD_RESOURCE_END" is required, e.g.,
2f686f1d9bee ("PCI: Correct PCI_STD_RESOURCE_END usage")

Denis, can you include something along those lines in the next
version?