Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] scsi: libsas: use sas_phy_match_dev_addr() instead of open coded

[Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>]

On 2022/9/27 10:30, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 9/27/22 11:29, Jason Yan wrote:
>> The sas address comparation of domain device and expander phy is open
>> coded. Now we can replace it with sas_phy_match_dev_addr().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c | 18 ++++++------------
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>> index df5a64ad902f..b2b5103c3e76 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>> @@ -738,9 +738,7 @@ static void sas_ex_get_linkrate(struct domain_device *parent,
>>   		    phy->phy_state == PHY_NOT_PRESENT)
>>   			continue;
>>   
>> -		if (SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr) ==
>> -		    SAS_ADDR(child->sas_addr)) {
>> -
>> +		if (sas_phy_match_dev_addr(child, phy)) {
>>   			child->min_linkrate = min(parent->min_linkrate,
>>   						  phy->linkrate);
>>   			child->max_linkrate = max(parent->max_linkrate,
>> @@ -1012,8 +1010,7 @@ static int sas_ex_discover_dev(struct domain_device *dev, int phy_id)
>>   		sas_add_parent_port(dev, phy_id);
>>   		return 0;
>>   	}
>> -	if (dev->parent && (SAS_ADDR(ex_phy->attached_sas_addr) ==
>> -			    SAS_ADDR(dev->parent->sas_addr))) {
>> +	if (dev->parent && sas_phy_match_dev_addr(dev->parent, ex_phy)) {
>>   		sas_add_parent_port(dev, phy_id);
>>   		if (ex_phy->routing_attr == TABLE_ROUTING)
>>   			sas_configure_phy(dev, phy_id, dev->port->sas_addr, 1);
>> @@ -1312,7 +1309,7 @@ static int sas_check_parent_topology(struct domain_device *child)
>>   		    parent_phy->phy_state == PHY_NOT_PRESENT)
>>   			continue;
>>   
>> -		if (SAS_ADDR(parent_phy->attached_sas_addr) != SAS_ADDR(child->sas_addr))
>> +		if (sas_phy_match_dev_addr(child, parent_phy))
> 
> This changes the test. This should be:
> 
> 		if (!sas_phy_match_dev_addr(child, parent_phy))
> 
> No ?

Oh yes, my mistake. Thank you so much to point that out. Will fix.

Thanks,
Jason

> 
>>   			continue;
>>   
>>   		child_phy = &child_ex->ex_phy[parent_phy->attached_phy_id];
>> @@ -1522,8 +1519,7 @@ static int sas_configure_parent(struct domain_device *parent,
>>   		struct ex_phy *phy = &ex_parent->ex_phy[i];
>>   
>>   		if ((phy->routing_attr == TABLE_ROUTING) &&
>> -		    (SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr) ==
>> -		     SAS_ADDR(child->sas_addr))) {
>> +		    sas_phy_match_dev_addr(child, phy)) {
>>   			res = sas_configure_phy(parent, i, sas_addr, include);
>>   			if (res)
>>   				return res;
>> @@ -1858,8 +1854,7 @@ static void sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr(struct domain_device *parent,
>>   	if (last) {
>>   		list_for_each_entry_safe(child, n,
>>   			&ex_dev->children, siblings) {
>> -			if (SAS_ADDR(child->sas_addr) ==
>> -			    SAS_ADDR(phy->attached_sas_addr)) {
>> +			if (sas_phy_match_dev_addr(child, phy)) {
>>   				set_bit(SAS_DEV_GONE, &child->state);
>>   				if (dev_is_expander(child->dev_type))
>>   					sas_unregister_ex_tree(parent->port, child);
>> @@ -1941,8 +1936,7 @@ static int sas_discover_new(struct domain_device *dev, int phy_id)
>>   	if (res)
>>   		return res;
>>   	list_for_each_entry(child, &dev->ex_dev.children, siblings) {
>> -		if (SAS_ADDR(child->sas_addr) ==
>> -		    SAS_ADDR(ex_phy->attached_sas_addr)) {
>> +		if (sas_phy_match_dev_addr(child, ex_phy)) {
>>   			if (dev_is_expander(child->dev_type))
>>   				res = sas_discover_bfs_by_root(child);
>>   			break;
>