Hi Andy,
Thank you for your comments. I will send an updated patch soon. My replies are
below:
On 05/14/2018 04:04 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Can we still preserve an order here? (Yes, even if the entire list is
> not fully ordered)
> In the context I see it would go before netdevice.h.
Sure, I will move kthread.h.
>> +static struct device *
>> +device_get_child_by_index(struct device *parent, int index)
>> +{
>> + struct klist_iter i;
>> + struct device *dev = NULL, *d;
>> + int child_index = 0;
>> +
>> + if (!parent->p || index < 0)
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>> + klist_iter_init(&parent->p->klist_children, &i);
>> + while ((d = next_device(&i))) {
>> + if (child_index == index) {
>> + dev = d;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + child_index++;
>> + }
>> + klist_iter_exit(&i);
>> +
>> + return dev;
>> +}
>
> This can be implemented as a subfunction to device_find_child(), can't it be?
Yes, but that would make it very inefficient to search for an index in a list
via function pointer call.
>
>> +/**
>
> Hmm... Why it's marked as kernel doc while it's just a plain comment?
> Same applies to the rest of similar comments.
Fixed this, thanks!
>
>> + for (i = 0; i < children_count; i++) {
>> + if (device_shutdown_serial) {
>> + device_shutdown_child_task(&tdata);
>> + } else {
>> + kthread_run(device_shutdown_child_task,
>> + &tdata, "device_shutdown.%s",
>> + dev_name(dev));
>> + }
>> + }
>
> Can't we just use device_for_each_child() instead?
No, at least without doing some memory allocation. Notice in this loop we are
not traversing through children, instead we are starting number of children
threads, and each thread finds a child to work on. Otherwise we would have to
pass child pointer via argument, and we would need to keep that argument in
some memory.
Pavel
