linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] software node: rename is_array to is

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: <20191016075940.GP32742@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:59:40 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] software node: rename is_array to is_inline

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:22:06AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:37:20AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:07:17PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array,
> > > as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data
> > > size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored
> > > directly inside property_entry or separately.
> > 
> > > -	if (prop->is_array)
> > > +	if (!prop->is_inline)
> > 
> > > -	if (p->is_array) {
> > > +	if (!p->is_inline) {
> > 
> > > -	if (src->is_array) {
> > > +	if (!src->is_inline) {
> > 
> > May we have positive conditionals instead?
> 
> I was trying to limit the context churn. I can definitely change
> property_get_pointer(), but the other 2 I think are better in the
> current form.
> 
> > 
> > > + * @is_inline: True when the property value is stored directly in
> > 
> > I think word 'directly' is superfluous here.
> > Or, perhaps, 'stored directly' -> 'embedded'
> 
> I'm OK with "embedded".
> 
> > 
> > > + *     &struct property_entry instance.
> > 
> > > + * @pointer: Pointer to the property when it is stored separately from
> > > + *     the &struct property_entry instance.
> > 
> > 'separately from' -> 'outside' ?
> 
> Umm, I think I prefer "separately" actually.
> 
> > 
> > > + * @value: Value of the property when it is stored inline.
> > 
> > 'stored inline' -> 'embedded in the &struct...' ?
> 
> I was trying to have a link "stored inline" -> "is_inline".
> 
> Do we want to change the flag to be "is_embedded"?

In dictionaries I have

embedded <-> unilateral
inline <-> ???

Perhaps native speaker can jump in and help here.

My point is to be consistent in the terms we are using.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko