[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1e220bfa-72ae-65bc-3771-42e872e7d399@csgroup.eu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 13:01:08 +0000
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] modules: Refactor within_module_core() and
within_module_init()
Le 24/01/2022 à 13:32, Christoph Hellwig a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:22:15AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> +static inline bool within_range(unsigned long addr, void *base, unsigned int size)
>
> Please avoid the overly long line.
>
> .. But given that this function only has a single caller I see no
> point in factoring it out anyway.
Patch 2 brings a second caller.
Having it in patch 1 reduces churn in patch 2. Is it the wrong way to do ?
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists