On 10/07/17 08:24, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> On 07/07/2017 10:44, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>> Also touch up the logic in do_pci_register_device() accordingly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk>
>> ---
>> hw/pci/pci.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c
>> index 0c6f74a..04e6edb 100644
>> --- a/hw/pci/pci.c
>> +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c
>> @@ -951,6 +951,15 @@ uint16_t pci_requester_id(PCIDevice *dev)
>> return pci_req_id_cache_extract(&dev->requester_id_cache);
>> }
>>
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>> +static bool pci_bus_devfn_available(PCIBus *bus, int devfn)
>> +{
>> + if (bus->devices[devfn]) {
>> + return false;
>> + } else {
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
> The function may simply return bus->devices[devfn], right?
> (the return type should take care of the rest)
>
>
>
>> /* -1 for devfn means auto assign */
>> static PCIDevice *do_pci_register_device(PCIDevice *pci_dev, PCIBus
>> *bus,
>> const char *name, int devfn,
>> @@ -974,14 +983,15 @@ static PCIDevice
>> *do_pci_register_device(PCIDevice *pci_dev, PCIBus *bus,
>> if (devfn < 0) {
>> for(devfn = bus->devfn_min ; devfn < ARRAY_SIZE(bus->devices);
>> devfn += PCI_FUNC_MAX) {
>> - if (!bus->devices[devfn])
>> + if (pci_bus_devfn_available(bus, devfn)) {
>
> I am all for making the code more readable, but in this
> case I am not sure if it worth it. "bus->devices[devfn]"
> is self explanatory, but maybe is a matter of taste.
Yes I agree that on its own it comes across as a more cosmetic patch,
however I felt that it made the final logic in patch 3 much more
readable in terms of determining the behaviour for reserved vs.
unavailable slots.
Does anyone else have any strong opinions?
ATB,
Mark.
