On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 06:00:28 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl> wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > > > > If acpi_bus_check_add() is called for a handle already having an > > existing struct acpi_device object attached, it is not necessary to > > check the type and status of the device correspondig to it, so > > change the ordering of acpi_bus_check_add() to avoid that. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 18 +++++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > Index: linux/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > +++ linux/drivers/acpi/scan.c > > @@ -1582,6 +1582,10 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add(ac > > acpi_status status; > > int result; > > > > + acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device); > > + if (device) > > + goto out; > > + > > result = acpi_bus_type_and_status(handle, &type, &sta); > > if (result) > > return AE_OK; > > @@ -1602,17 +1606,13 @@ static acpi_status acpi_bus_check_add(ac > > * We may already have an acpi_device from a previous enumeration. > > If > > * so, we needn't add it again, but we may still have to start it. > > It looks like this comment might need updating, since we no longer > even get here if we already have an acpi_device. Presumably you take > care of the "start" it mentions elsewhere now.
I think you're right, will update. Thanks, Rafael > > */ > > - acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &device); > > - if (!device) { > > - acpi_add_single_object(&device, handle, type, sta, > > - ACPI_BUS_ADD_BASIC); > > - if (!device) > > - return AE_CTRL_DEPTH; > > + acpi_add_single_object(&device, handle, type, sta, > > ACPI_BUS_ADD_BASIC); > > + if (!device) > > + return AE_CTRL_DEPTH; > > > > - device->add_type = context ? > > - ACPI_BUS_ADD_START : > > ACPI_BUS_ADD_MATCH; > > - } > > + device->add_type = context ? ACPI_BUS_ADD_START : > > ACPI_BUS_ADD_MATCH; > > > > + out: > > if (!*return_value) > > *return_value = device; > > I think all (both) callers of acpi_bus_check_add() supply a > return_value pointer, so you could just remove the test. -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/