Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <e0509c905b25f2fbd4edb33928bd0f57f1b0ef1b.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v5 1/4] PCI: Clean up pci_scan_slot()
From:   Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
        Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Fri, 13 May 2022 16:47:59 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20220513140723.GA947754@bhelgaas>
References: <20220513140723.GA947754@bhelgaas>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2022-05-13 at 09:07 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 04:56:42PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-05-05 at 10:38 +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > > While determining the next PCI function is factored out of
> > > pci_scan_slot() into next_fn() the former still handles the first
> > > function as a special case. This duplicates the code from the scan loop.
> > > 
> > > Furthermore the non ARI branch of next_fn() is generally hard to
> > > understand and especially the check for multifunction devices is hidden
> > > in the handling of NULL devices for non-contiguous multifunction. It
> > > also signals that no further functions need to be scanned by returning
> > > 0 via wraparound and this is a valid function number.
> > > 
> > > Improve upon this by transforming the conditions in next_fn() to be
> > > easier to understand.
> > > 
> > > By changing next_fn() to return -ENODEV instead of 0 when there is no
> > > next function we can then handle the initial function inside the loop
> > > and deduplicate the shared handling. This also makes it more explicit
> > > that only function 0 must exist.
> > > 
> > > No functional change is intended.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Friendly ping :-)
> 
> Thanks and sorry for the delay.  I'm off today for my daughter's
> wedding reception but will get back to it next week. 

No worries, have a great day and congratulations!

>  Just to expose
> some of my thought process (and not to request more work from you!)
> I've been wondering whether b1bd58e448f2 ("PCI: Consolidate
> "next-function" functions") is really causing us more trouble than
> it's worth.  In some ways that makes the single next-function harder
> to read.  But I guess the hypervisor special case is not exactly a
> "next-function" thing -- it's a "keep scanning even if there's no fn
> 0" thing.
> 
> Bjorn

Yeah I do see your point. Let's discuss next week.