From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 353F116131F for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:33:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711715617; cv=none; b=JAtVtMROqZ3OhiJTYvU4WS2BbzwDJ6kPtWypCwCO6r9oN61Itx6RMvAxMoX2z04AHmdHWWgMq6z1CP1ZM7J3g1e8VdH5S54n/D+lO1o9z0G6YI7iZcdwzxn36nYYLWSpPJufnbwC5VjdXaqQocNHL/HzHEi61JFbJ2swSAiEFiY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711715617; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0t7MXM/aLNu5a23txLPE25mlHB94/qJWGAlsmICZDFw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=APOvnGb+m1j/BZSAlluGxpUBIfgMLoBQv8GQ+vbfQMzt7HXLJw6veR91k1NQ9L1FYG8W0Vm53OQDl8Y1f6zutAcgOLPpEuAxQcC90+RQAe/LkK9Q9Q1fFs1hapHOHzoo7LOuNz80BUidRySRVAbYqfq1A5WAU+b/WsAqj0TF6b4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=rCoS01yL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="rCoS01yL" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB992C433F1; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:33:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1711715617; bh=0t7MXM/aLNu5a23txLPE25mlHB94/qJWGAlsmICZDFw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=rCoS01yLhRpHwD3y+xUjTocfIjUpKz+FM2UZyiztDCo6bgH/jOeBctL4k8F28Mxu9 PoOTzHcMCAV3rXPpXgP/MoqLV4qsoCXP8Dkl9sVR9FHwdEmI806TJpQNFsj+0rvzFe 4OKWLO7PIXrFhnR4kUCIs4UpEl5SahkBf246+AoyfG5fqnfTYXakoA6fEgsjMZ6V7L MiyWGnzwADiL3gOqXBaO3V4QcQP6S5ZgIZe6HDsLNAUmweYO2TZYSLdoxlpRImzD42 UEgcBoG3sS3XFYm8sM4/U5EcT8a5jgN3AEzYd3ecehz88fK5JRa3wz178rGE28W0a7 3neMCygCaWmtw== Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:33:35 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Damien Le Moal Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Shawn Lin , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Bjorn Helgaas , Heiko Stuebner , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] PCI: endpoint: Introduce pci_epc_check_func() Message-ID: <20240329123335.GA1638817@bhelgaas> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240329090945.1097609-2-dlemoal@kernel.org> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 06:09:27PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: > Introduce the small epc core helper function pci_epc_check_func() to > check that an epc pointer, a physical function number and a virtual > function number are all valid. This avoids repeating the code pattern: Can you rename pci_epc_check_func() to something that suggests an assertion that can be either true or false? "Check" doesn't give a hint about what a "true" return means. Maybe "valid_func" or similar? Bjorn From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08281C6FD1F for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:35:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:References: List-Owner; bh=0rumUqUPuMng4ym6/Q0+kJQA6duNjK9cvQ8yFaop9s8=; b=p3PLO0SJ0DOWNg tqzkeMCsqg+6DL1Yu4cmFwZ9K9aua6rEVENq+5F6kYtC86cGVyZ6j6/97emGPEEvQyeAjHoCyh/k5 u8Q1RPR0fZdiKBHXCgO4m8Xyj/1OsMAkmLkVlSCb277b0uuX3rynwQ3S3X8hsk5ROBoTC2u/tEbkg Tu6RTN3KJlJdVURqpwwC7uoajOX+j4W/j59gGSuoitOYiiTkMhruSATJC7N6s+v6VaYUBXanI4nat l06k23x/RMTTQDqYjR7JexLjOKlLHrkomNlYii8dGQmfIxl/FTKRqfdlYz0sbqblHbMBa1Lk6wV9l sFMohLL/ekVuZ/YwSHDQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rqBS7-00000000OMQ-24SE; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:35:23 +0000 Received: from desiato.infradead.org ([2001:8b0:10b:1:d65d:64ff:fe57:4e05]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rqBQq-00000000NZH-3KJa for linux-rockchip@bombadil.infradead.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:34:04 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:References; bh=PbxNxDGhhSM6r2fEtrxw4Rb4Oi1NZNuPkPjD4iAtpp4=; b=QyvuYyiTTL9vkb8ewvtHhIwakI JQdNmnxg1Ds/LuKMsGHQCE2pd3X0uqW8truIKRsCLtHtfQny/ajXDis7gQpSIw4KZO5FTDnmlGPUm lhgHb7TbTnkIXIsopqrJ6rVzYtgWQMrefxXdu07C56a1VHN8D84rMVZGpioWVFPzCW3TFxi/qCBFC 0KuoDUnAWXdirqT04NK1GISFepuxw1b14bxVPYJ/efdjcdsHvRNsoVYN2imKctW/LAjT7VG2OF+jV BNEi6R5yHe8KeFsp10qjR31EIYgPBx0SQzuSi7HRghFfyQaemxLTt+bCGmiwrvCgbvhFS1VipgT77 AktzhYvQ==; Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([139.178.84.217]) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rqBQm-00000001YXs-0WfO for linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:34:02 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3C861934; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:33:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB992C433F1; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:33:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1711715617; bh=0t7MXM/aLNu5a23txLPE25mlHB94/qJWGAlsmICZDFw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=rCoS01yLhRpHwD3y+xUjTocfIjUpKz+FM2UZyiztDCo6bgH/jOeBctL4k8F28Mxu9 PoOTzHcMCAV3rXPpXgP/MoqLV4qsoCXP8Dkl9sVR9FHwdEmI806TJpQNFsj+0rvzFe 4OKWLO7PIXrFhnR4kUCIs4UpEl5SahkBf246+AoyfG5fqnfTYXakoA6fEgsjMZ6V7L MiyWGnzwADiL3gOqXBaO3V4QcQP6S5ZgIZe6HDsLNAUmweYO2TZYSLdoxlpRImzD42 UEgcBoG3sS3XFYm8sM4/U5EcT8a5jgN3AEzYd3ecehz88fK5JRa3wz178rGE28W0a7 3neMCygCaWmtw== Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:33:35 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Damien Le Moal Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Shawn Lin , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Bjorn Helgaas , Heiko Stuebner , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] PCI: endpoint: Introduce pci_epc_check_func() Message-ID: <20240329123335.GA1638817@bhelgaas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240329090945.1097609-2-dlemoal@kernel.org> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240329_123400_476289_E20DE31E X-CRM114-Status: UNSURE ( 6.03 ) X-CRM114-Notice: Please train this message. X-BeenThere: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Upstream kernel work for Rockchip platforms List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "Linux-rockchip" Errors-To: linux-rockchip-bounces+linux-rockchip=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 06:09:27PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: > Introduce the small epc core helper function pci_epc_check_func() to > check that an epc pointer, a physical function number and a virtual > function number are all valid. This avoids repeating the code pattern: Can you rename pci_epc_check_func() to something that suggests an assertion that can be either true or false? "Check" doesn't give a hint about what a "true" return means. Maybe "valid_func" or similar? Bjorn _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip