Re: [PATCH 2/2] ice: drop pf == NULL check in ice_pf_state_is_nominal()

[Yury Norov]

On Sat, Sep 05, 2026 at 07:32:45PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 09:20:36AM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
> > The function has 3 callers, all except one explicitly require
> > pf != NULL. Add the corresponding check to the remaining caller,
> > and remove it from the ice_pf_state_is_nominal(). It makse the
> > fun function a one-liner.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c  | 3 ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c | 2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
> > index 73996e3022ef..6d5b8acc4764 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
> > @@ -1705,9 +1705,6 @@ static void ice_vsi_set_rss_flow_fld(struct ice_vsi *vsi)
> >   */
> >  bool ice_pf_state_is_nominal(struct ice_pf *pf)
> >  {
> > -	if (!pf)
> > -		return false;
> > -
> >  	return bitmap_empty(pf->state, ICE_STATE_NOMINAL_CHECK_BITS);
> >  }
> >  
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c
> > index d88835482d3a..168d85f9477f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c
> > @@ -5521,7 +5521,7 @@ static int ice_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >  
> >  	pf = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >  
> > -	if (!ice_pf_state_is_nominal(pf)) {
> > +	if (!pf || !ice_pf_state_is_nominal(pf)) {
> >  		dev_err(dev, "Device is not ready, no need to suspend it\n");
> >  		return -EBUSY;
> >  	}
> 
> Is the new condition necessary in ice_suspend?

IDK. I'm just trying to stay on the safe side. The
ice_pf_state_is_nominal() was safe against pf == NULL,
so I'm trying to preserve the invariant.

If it's impossible, I can do:

        if (WARN_ON(!pf) || !ice_pf_state_is_nominal(pf)) 

This would imply unlikely(), and more verbose than an implied
assumption that pf is never uninitialized.