On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 10:22:13 -0800
Joe Perches <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 10:15 -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:37:10 -0800
> > Joe Perches <[email protected]> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Thu, 2019-11-21 at 13:26 -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:  
> > > > Use combined macros for_each_svm_dev() to simplify SVM device
> > > > iteration and error checking.    
> > > []  
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c
> > > > b/drivers/iommu/intel-svm.c    
> > > []  
> > > > +#define for_each_svm_dev(sdev, svm, d)                 \
> > > > +       list_for_each_entry((sdev), &(svm)->devs, list)
> > > > \
> > > > +               if ((d) != (sdev)->dev) {} else
> > > > +
> > > >  int intel_svm_bind_mm(struct device *dev, int *pasid, int
> > > > flags, struct svm_dev_ops *ops) {
> > > >         struct intel_iommu *iommu =
> > > > intel_svm_device_to_iommu(dev); @@ -274,15 +278,13 @@ int
> > > > intel_svm_bind_mm(struct device *dev, int *pasid, int flags,
> > > > struct svm_dev_ goto out; }
> > > >  
> > > > -                       list_for_each_entry(sdev, &svm->devs,
> > > > list) {
> > > > -                               if (dev == sdev->dev) {
> > > > -                                       if (sdev->ops != ops) {
> > > > -                                               ret = -EBUSY;
> > > > -                                               goto out;
> > > > -                                       }
> > > > -                                       sdev->users++;
> > > > -                                       goto success;
> > > > +                       for_each_svm_dev(sdev, svm, dev) {
> > > > +                               if (sdev->ops != ops) {
> > > > +                                       ret = -EBUSY;
> > > > +                                       goto out;
> > > >                                 }
> > > > +                               sdev->users++;
> > > > +                               goto success;
> > > >                         }    
> > > 
> > > I think this does not read better as this is now a
> > > for_each loop that exits the loop on the first match.
> > >   
> > I think one of the benefits is reduced indentation. What do you
> > recommend?  
> 
> Making the code intelligible for a reader.
> 
> At least add a comment describing why there is only
> a single possible match.
> 
> Given the for_each name, it's odd code that only the
> first match has an action.
> 
I will add a comment to explain we are trying to find the matching
device on the list.

Thanks
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu

Reply via email to