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: <569FBD1A.5050609@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:00:10 +0600
From:	Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@...aro.org>
To:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
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


Hi Andy,

On 20.01.2016 21:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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?

It does not fit 80 chars.  And I would prefer to leave ?: here.

>> --- 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.

I will fix the name of function.  The type of returned value is clear 
from the function definition.

>> + * @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.

It is aligned with the returned value (but not with the type of returned 
value).  So I would prefer to leave it as is.

Thank you for review.
Aleksey Makarov

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