linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8] eeepc-laptop: pull out eeepc_destroy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:16:57 +0100
From:	Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com>
To:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc:	Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
	acpi4asus-user <acpi4asus-user@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	platform-driver-x86 <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] eeepc-laptop: pull out eeepc_destroy_rfkill

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:12:39PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
>> In eeepc_rfkill_exit, we implement the same code four times. Pull out a
>> function that cleans up an rfkill object to get rid of the duplication.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c | 34 ++++++++++++++--------------------
>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
>> index e92ea41..73e8d39 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
>> @@ -823,35 +823,29 @@ static char EEEPC_RFKILL_NODE_1[] = "\\_SB.PCI0.P0P5";
>>  static char EEEPC_RFKILL_NODE_2[] = "\\_SB.PCI0.P0P6";
>>  static char EEEPC_RFKILL_NODE_3[] = "\\_SB.PCI0.P0P7";
>>
>> +static inline void eeepc_destroy_rfkill(struct rfkill **rfkill)
>> +{
>> +     if (!*rfkill)
>> +             return;
>> +     rfkill_unregister(*rfkill);
>> +     rfkill_destroy(*rfkill);
>> +     *rfkill = NULL;
>> +}
>
> In this case the savings is 6 lines at the cost of some legibility as double
> pointers are arguably harder to read, and definitely easier to screw up ;-)
>
> I appreciate the goal, but I'm not convinced it is worth it.

Fair enough. If anything the following would be slightly less complicated:

#define eeepc_destroy_rfkill(rfkill) \
do { \
        if (rfkill) { \
                 rfkill_unregister(rfkill); \
                 rfkill_destroy(rfkill); \
                 rkfill = NULL; \
        } \
} while (0);

I don't think any new eeepc's are being produced, so this code is
unlikely to change anyway. Let's leave it as is.

Thanks,
Frans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/