Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 3/7] PCI: Add new array for keeping track of ordering of reset methods

["Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>]

Hi Amey,

[...]
> +/*
> + * The ordering for functions in pci_reset_fn_methods
> + * is required for reset_methods byte array defined
> + * in struct pci_dev
> + */

A small nitpick: missing period at the end of the sentence in the
comment above, and in other comments too.  Might add for completeness
and consistency.

[...]
> +typedef int (*pci_reset_fn_t)(struct pci_dev *, int);
> +
> +struct pci_reset_fn_method {
> +	pci_reset_fn_t reset_fn;
> +	char *name;
> +};

Question about the custom type definition above: would it be really
needed?  It there is only potentially a limited use for it, then perhaps
it would not be useful to have one?

Linus also has some preference on usage of custom types, as per:

  https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/typedefs.html

But, in the end, this really boils down to a matter of style and/or
preference.

[...]
> +#define PCI_RESET_FN_METHODS 5

Not sure if worth changing name of this constant, but what about the
following:

  #define PCI_RESET_FN_METHODS_NUM 5

Or even perhaps:

  #define PCI_RESET_METHODS_NUM 5

So it's a little bit more self-explanatory.  This would be in the
similar notion, as per:

  https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc2/source/include/linux/pci.h#L115

[...]
> +	u8 reset_methods[PCI_RESET_FN_METHODS];	/* Array for storing ordering of reset methods */

This comment reads somewhat awkward - we know that an array would be
used, most likely, for storing things, thus what about the following:

  /* Reset methods ordered by priority */

Just a suggestion, though.

Krzysztof