[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvzvAdhmNOaNmPCRXUR9GGgaQ1n2HuRLLCb4Nj-tUrm5yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 22:30:08 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: concat: refactor concat_lock/concat_unlock
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:08 AM Chris Packham
<chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
>
> concat_lock() and concat_unlock() only differed in terms of the mtd_xx
> operation they called. Refactor them to use a common helper function and
> pass mtd_lock or mtd_unlock as an argument.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c | 41 +++++++++--------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c
> index cbc5925e6440..9514cd2db63c 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c
> @@ -451,7 +451,8 @@ static int concat_erase(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct erase_info *instr)
> return err;
> }
>
> -static int concat_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
> +static int __concat_xxlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
> + int (*mtd_op)(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len))
> {
> struct mtd_concat *concat = CONCAT(mtd);
> int i, err = -EINVAL;
> @@ -470,7 +471,7 @@ static int concat_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
> else
> size = len;
>
> - err = mtd_lock(subdev, ofs, size);
> + err = mtd_op(subdev, ofs, size);
> if (err)
> break;
>
> @@ -485,38 +486,14 @@ static int concat_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
> return err;
> }
>
> -static int concat_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
> +static int concat_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
> {
> - struct mtd_concat *concat = CONCAT(mtd);
> - int i, err = 0;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < concat->num_subdev; i++) {
> - struct mtd_info *subdev = concat->subdev[i];
> - uint64_t size;
> -
> - if (ofs >= subdev->size) {
> - size = 0;
> - ofs -= subdev->size;
> - continue;
> - }
> - if (ofs + len > subdev->size)
> - size = subdev->size - ofs;
> - else
> - size = len;
> -
> - err = mtd_unlock(subdev, ofs, size);
> - if (err)
> - break;
> -
> - len -= size;
> - if (len == 0)
> - break;
> -
> - err = -EINVAL;
> - ofs = 0;
> - }
> + return __concat_xxlock(mtd, ofs, len, mtd_lock);
> +}
>
> - return err;
> +static int concat_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
> +{
> + return __concat_xxlock(mtd, ofs, len, mtd_unlock);
> }
>
> static void concat_sync(struct mtd_info *mtd)
Not sure if it passing a function pointer is worth it. bool is_lock would
also do it. But this is a matter of taste, I guess. :)
Reviewed-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
--
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists