linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] ACPI: introduce a function to find the first physical device

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]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VcdtU6izThE+Z2ODnYoXk-uhweXzUtFwSze_jJHw3+38g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:12:18 +0200
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:	Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@...aro.org>
Cc:	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
	Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] ACPI: introduce a function to find the first
 physical device

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Aleksey Makarov
<aleksey.makarov@...aro.org> wrote:
> Factor out the code that finds the first physical device
> of a given ACPI device.  It is used in several places.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@...aro.org>

Hmm… Sorry, didn't notice one style issue and there is one is matter
of taste below.

> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_platform.c
> @@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id forbidden_id_list[] = {

> +       pdevinfo.parent = adev->parent ?
> +               acpi_get_first_physical_node(adev->parent) : NULL;

Matter of taste, but I believe if-else looks better here even when
consumes +2 LOC.
Or, does it fit 80? How wide then?

> --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> @@ -478,24 +478,35 @@ static void acpi_device_remove_notify_handler(struct acpi_device *device)
>                               Device Matching
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
>
> -static struct acpi_device *acpi_primary_dev_companion(struct acpi_device *adev,
> -                                                     const struct device *dev)
> +/**
> + * acpi_device_fix_parent - Get first physical node of an ACPI device

'node' -> 'device node'
Name of the function is wrong.

> + * @adev: ACPI device in question
> + */
> +struct device *acpi_get_first_physical_node(struct acpi_device *adev)
>  {
>         struct mutex *physical_node_lock = &adev->physical_node_lock;
> +       struct device *node = NULL;
>
>         mutex_lock(physical_node_lock);
> -       if (list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list)) {
> -               adev = NULL;
> -       } else {
> -               const struct acpi_device_physical_node *node;
>
> +       if (!list_empty(&adev->physical_node_list))
>                 node = list_first_entry(&adev->physical_node_list,
> -                                       struct acpi_device_physical_node, node);
> -               if (node->dev != dev)
> -                       adev = NULL;
> -       }
> +                               struct acpi_device_physical_node, node)->dev;

I didn't notice this '->dev' thingy. I supposed that the function
returns struct acpi_device_physical_node *, not struct device *.

Currently the name is not aligned with returned value.

> +
>         mutex_unlock(physical_node_lock);
> -       return adev;
> +
> +       return node;
> +}


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko