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

[Jason Yan]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   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;