linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] rpmsg: virtio: rename rpmsg_create

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: <20200922070603.GA4648@ubuntu>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:06:03 +0200
From:   Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc:     ohad@...ery.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, loic.pallardy@...com,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] rpmsg: virtio: rename rpmsg_create_channel

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 06:09:51PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> From: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
> 
> Rename the internal function as it is internal, and as
> the name will be used in rpmsg_core.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
> ---
>  drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> index 7d7ed4e5cce7..e8d55c8b9cbf 100644
> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> @@ -395,8 +395,9 @@ static void virtio_rpmsg_release_device(struct device *dev)
>   * this function will be used to create both static and dynamic
>   * channels.
>   */
> -static struct rpmsg_device *rpmsg_create_channel(struct virtproc_info *vrp,
> -						 struct rpmsg_channel_info *chinfo)
> +static struct rpmsg_device *
> +__rpmsg_create_channel(struct virtproc_info *vrp,
> +		       struct rpmsg_channel_info *chinfo)

Nitpick: we now have 100 characters, so there's no *need* any more to split that 
line, now it's more a matter of consistent style and personal preference. Most 
functions in that file have function type and name on the same line, but a few 
also make the split like here... So, we can choose our poison here I guess.

Thanks
Guennadi

>  {
>  	struct virtio_rpmsg_channel *vch;
>  	struct rpmsg_device *rpdev;
> @@ -869,7 +870,7 @@ static int rpmsg_ns_cb(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, void *data, int len,
>  		if (ret)
>  			dev_err(dev, "rpmsg_destroy_channel failed: %d\n", ret);
>  	} else {
> -		newch = rpmsg_create_channel(vrp, &chinfo);
> +		newch = __rpmsg_create_channel(vrp, &chinfo);
>  		if (!newch)
>  			dev_err(dev, "rpmsg_create_channel failed\n");
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>