On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 08:30:42AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
> On 2025/6/5 22:47, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 05:45:55PM +0800, Jiqian Chen wrote:
> >> @@ -209,11 +301,11 @@ static int vpci_init_capabilities(struct pci_dev
> >> *pdev)
> >> pdev->domain, &pdev->sbdf,
> >> is_ext ? "extended" : "legacy", cap);
> >> if ( !is_ext )
> >> - {
> >> rc = vpci_capability_hide(pdev, cap);
> >> - if ( rc )
> >> - return rc;
> >> - }
> >> + else
> >> + rc = vpci_ext_capability_hide(pdev, cap);
> >> + if ( rc )
> >> + return rc;
> >
> > Could the code in the previous patch be:
> >
> > if ( !is_ext )
> > rc = vpci_capability_hide(pdev, cap);
> >
> > if ( rc )
> > return rc;
> >
> > So that your introduction here is simpler?
> OK, but the logic of the previous patch will become a little strange.
> Anyway, the strange will disappear after applying this patch.
No strong opinion really, was mostly a recommendation to avoid extra
changes here. In a series it's best if you try to arrange the code so
that it's only modified once (if possible, obviously).
Thanks, Roger.
