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]

Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 02:21:59 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:	Aleksey Makarov <aleksey.makarov@...aro.org>,
	"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>,
	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 Wednesday, January 20, 2016 05:12:18 PM 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.

I disagree.

Thanks,
Rafael