[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YC2VM1JI0tECPs7g@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 00:14:11 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@....de>,
"peterhuewe@....de" <peterhuewe@....de>,
"stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com"
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tpm: fix reference counting for struct tpm_chip
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:31:26PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> ...
> > > > + get_device(&chip->dev);
> > > > + chip->devs.release = tpm_devs_release;
> > > > + chip->devs.devt =
> > > > + MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES);
> >
> > Isn't this less than 100 chars?
>
> Still best kept under 80 if 'reasonable'?
>
> Really it is just split in the wrong place:
> chip->devs.devt = MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt),
> chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES);
Well it looks crap IMHO. Would be more reasonable to have it in a single
like. And it is legit too, since it is accepted by checkpatch.
You might break the lines within 80 chars if it is somehow "logically"
consistent.
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>
>
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists