[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87egg3l12m.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:17:05 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-i915: Delete an unnecessary check before the function call "pwm_put"
On Fri, 06 Nov 2015, SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>> The pwm_put() function tests whether its argument is NULL and then
>>> returns immediately. Thus the test around the call is not needed.
>>
>> The compiler doesn't need it, but IMO it's useful documentation for humans.
>
> How do you think about to extend the explicit documentation for
> the affected parameters in the Linux programming interfaces?
The question is, while reading intel_panel.c, which one conveys the
reader better the idea that panel->backlight.pwm may be NULL for some
connectors:
a) if (panel->backlight.pwm)
pwm_put(panel->backlight.pwm);
b) pwm_put(panel->backlight.pwm);
No amount of documentation in pwm_put() kernel-doc is going to help with
that. In most cases, panel->backlight.pwm is in fact NULL. IMO
unconditionally calling pwm_put() on it gives the reader the wrong idea.
Others may disagree.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists