linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 12/19] remoteproc: core: Add vdev support and force mode to resource amending function

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:   Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:11:42 +0200
From:   loic pallardy <loic.pallardy@...com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:     <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>, <ohad@...ery.com>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel@...inux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/19] remoteproc: core: Add vdev support and force
 mode to resource amending function



On 09/08/2016 01:02 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2016, loic pallardy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 09/08/2016 10:48 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote:
>>>
>>>> This patch proposes diverse updates to rproc_update_resource_table_entry
>>>> function:
>>>> - rename rproc_update_resource_table_entry to __update_rsc_tbl_entry to
>>>>   have shorter function name.
>>>> - add RSC_VDEV support
>>>> - add force mode resource even if resource already fixed on firmware side.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@...com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>>> index 30e9c70..aff1a00 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>>> @@ -1027,13 +1027,15 @@ static int __verify_rsc_tbl_entry(struct rproc *rproc,
>>>>  	return -EINVAL;
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> -static int rproc_update_resource_table_entry(struct rproc *rproc,
>>>> +static int __update_rsc_tbl_entry(struct rproc *rproc,
>>>
>>> Unless the name is unruly, (which I don't think it is, you're still
>>> having to line wrap at the call site), I tend to go for clarity over
>>> brevity.
>> It was only to have reasonable line length. I can keept original name and
>> see impact on rest of the code.
>
> Reasonable line length is 80.  This line was 65.
This line yes. Name change proposal is to reduce line where this 
function is called (in rproc_apply_resource_overrides for exemple)
But OK to keep standard rproc_xxx naming
>