linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 02/26] leds: class: Improve LED and LED flash class registration API

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: <17af15f5-9b0b-f2cd-adbe-3f7b00028224@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 20:56:09 +0200
From:   Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org, dtor@...gle.com,
        linux@...ck-us.net, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>,
        Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>, Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Oleh Kravchenko <oleg@....org.ua>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Simon Shields <simon@...eageos.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/26] leds: class: Improve LED and LED flash class
 registration API

On 4/24/19 8:25 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * led_classdev_register_ext - register a new object of LED class with
>>>> + *			       init data
>>>> + * @parent: LED controller device this LED is driven by
>>>> + * @led_cdev: the led_classdev structure for this device
>>>> + * @init_data: the LED class device initialization data
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Returns: 0 on success or negative error value on failure
>>>> + */
>>>> +extern int led_classdev_register_ext(struct device *parent,
>>>> +				     struct led_classdev *led_cdev,
>>>> +				     struct led_init_data *init_data);
>>>> +#define led_classdev_register(parent, led_cdev)			\
>>>> +	led_classdev_register_ext(parent, led_cdev, NULL)
>>>> +extern int devm_led_classdev_register_ext(struct device *parent,
>>>> +					  struct led_classdev *led_cdev,
>>>> +					  struct led_init_data *init_data);
>>>> +#define devm_led_classdev_register(parent, led_cdev)		\
>>>> +	devm_led_classdev_register_ext(parent, led_cdev, NULL)
>>>
>>> Static inline (instead of macro) might be preffered. More type safety
>>> and less confusing behaviour in case of errors...
>>
>> This is kind of alias. You have type control in the function being
>> mapped. With inline we'd have to nest the function calls, i.e.
>> it will worsen performance by this one additional call level.
> 
> It is not a big issue; but no, performance will be exactly the
> same. "static inline" says .. well, inline this into caller, so there
> will be one function call, not two.

Yes, I realized that right after sending the message.

-- 
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski