linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] scsi: ufs: Group UFS WB related flags to struct ufs_dev

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: <1608027095.10163.27.camel@mtkswgap22>
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:11:35 +0800
From:   Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
To:     Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
CC:     <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, <avri.altman@....com>,
        <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>, <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] scsi: ufs: Group UFS WB related flags to struct
 ufs_dev_info

On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 10:42 +0100, Bean Huo wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 17:01 +0800, Stanley Chu wrote:
> > > +     bool    wb_buf_flush_enabled;
> > > +     u8      wb_dedicated_lu;
> > > +     u8      b_wb_buffer_type;
> > > +     u32     d_wb_alloc_units;
> > > +
> > > +     bool    b_rpm_dev_flush_capable;
> > > +     u8      b_presrv_uspc_en;
> > 
> > Perhaps we could unify the style of these WB related stuff to wb_* ?
> 
> yes, agree. I will change them.
> 
> > 
> > Besides, I am not sure if using tab instead space between the type
> > and
> > name in this struct is a good idea.
> > 
> using space, in addition single space, type and parameter names are
> mixed. 
> 
> 
> use space:
> 
>  /* UFS WB related flags */
> bool wb_enabled;
> bool wb_buf_flush_enabled;
> u8
> wb_dedicated_lu;
> u8 b_wb_buffer_type;
> u32 d_wb_alloc_units;
> 
> use table:
> 
>  /* UFS WB related flags */
> bool    wb_enabled;
> bool    wb_buf_flush_enabled;
> u8      wb_dedicated_lu;
> u8      b_wb_buffer_type;
> u32     d_wb_alloc_units;
> 
> I think, the result is very clear comparing above two examples. yes,
> there is no explicit stipulation that we must use space or tab. Both
> styles exist in Linux. Maybe this is just matter of personal interest.

Hi Bean,

Yes, I got your point. I am fine with this style change, but just wonder
if it would be better to change all structures in all ufs headers (or at
least all structures in ufs.h) in the same time to make the style
unified in the same file?

Besides, we may need other reviewer's comments for the new style.

Thanks,
Stanley Chu

> 
> 
> Bean
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Stanley Chu
>