Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: Avoid unnecessary cpu_hotplug_disable() for non-NUMA devices

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Commit message discrepancy regarding the placement of cpu_hotplug_enable().
--

commit 9acd77cab9fa6f681c21a1bfe522a33f79ec6605
Author: weipengliang <weipengliang@xiaomi.com>

PCI: Avoid unnecessary cpu_hotplug_disable() for non-NUMA devices

This commit limits cpu_hotplug_disable() and cpu_hotplug_enable() calls
to the NUMA-valid code path. This removes overhead for non-NUMA devices
where local_pci_probe() can be called directly.

> Move cpu_hotplug_disable() into the NUMA-valid else branch so non-NUMA
> devices skip it entirely. Place a single cpu_hotplug_enable() after
> destroy_work_on_stack() to keep hotplug disabled during flush_work()
> and local_pci_probe(), preventing CPU offline from migrating the probe
> work to an incorrect NUMA node.

> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -414,11 +414,11 @@ static int pci_call_probe(struct pci_driver *drv, struct pci_dev *dev,
>  			error = local_pci_probe(&ddi);
>  		}
>  
> +		cpu_hotplug_enable();
>  		destroy_work_on_stack(&arg.work);

[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but does the commit message accurately describe the
code sequence here?

The commit message mentions placing cpu_hotplug_enable() after
destroy_work_on_stack(), but the code actually places it immediately
before.

Could the commit message be updated to match the code, or should the
code be adjusted to match the intent described in the commit message?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260522084844.1901-1-weipengliang@xiaomi.com?part=1