Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] PCI: Improve printout in pdev_sort_resources()

[Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:35:55 +0300 (EEST)
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 12:55:45 +0300
> > Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Use pci_resource_name() helper in pdev_sort_resources() to print
> > > resources in user-friendly format. Also replace the vague "bogus
> > > alignment" with a more precise explanation of the problem.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > v2:
> > > - Place colon after %s %pR to be consistent with other printouts
> > > - Replace vague "bogus alignment" with the exact cause
> > > 
> > >  drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 5 +++--
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > > index 23082bc0ca37..0fd286f79674 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
> > > @@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ static void pdev_sort_resources(struct pci_dev *dev, struct list_head *head)
> > >  	int i;
> > >  
> > >  	pci_dev_for_each_resource(dev, r, i) {
> > > +		const char *r_name = pci_resource_name(dev, i);
> > >  		struct pci_dev_resource *dev_res, *tmp;
> > >  		resource_size_t r_align;
> > >  		struct list_head *n;
> > > @@ -146,8 +147,8 @@ static void pdev_sort_resources(struct pci_dev *dev, struct list_head *head)
> > >  
> > >  		r_align = pci_resource_alignment(dev, r);
> > >  		if (!r_align) {
> > > -			pci_warn(dev, "BAR %d: %pR has bogus alignment\n",
> > > -				 i, r);
> > > +			pci_warn(dev, "%s %pR: alignment must not be zero\n",
> > > +				 r_name, r);  
> >
> > Why bother with local variable if only used here?  
> 
> No other reason than it seems to always be a local variable in the other 
> places too regardless the number of uses.
Fair enough. local style is perfectly valid reasoning.

Jonathan

> 
> > Absolutely fine if you have more code coming that uses it again though!
> > 
> > Otherwise seems sensible change.  
>