linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] iio: bmg160_core: Simplify using devm_regulator_*get

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]

Date:   Sat, 20 Aug 2022 09:25:40 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Xiang wangx <wangxiang@...rlc.com>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] iio: bmg160_core: Simplify using devm_regulator_*get_enable()

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 9:19 AM Vaittinen, Matti
<Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com> wrote:
> On 8/20/22 02:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:21 PM Matti Vaittinen
> > <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:

...

> >>          struct bmg160_data *data;
> >>          struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
> >>          int ret;
> >> +       static const char * const regulators[] = {"vdd", "vddio"};
> >
> > Please, keep this following the "longest line first" rule. Note, in
>
> This was not following the (IMO slightly silly) rule even prior my
> patch. I can for sure move my line up - but that won't give you the
> "reverse X-mas tree".

What do you mean by this? In the above case the rule does exactly give
you "reversed xmas tree order". What did I miss?

> I don't have any real objections on changing the styling though - I
> don't expect this to be merged before the dependency is in rc1 - so I
> guess I will anyways need to respin this for next cycle. I can do the
> styling then.

Fine with me.

> > this case you even can move it out of the function, so we will see
> > clearly that this is (not a hidden) global variable.
>
> Here I do disagree with you. Moving the array out of the function makes
> it _much_ less obvious it is not used outside this function. Reason for
> making is "static const" is to allow the data be placed in read-only
> area (thanks to Guenter who originally gave me this tip).

"static" in C language means two things (that's what come to my mind):
- for functions this tells that a function is not used outside of the module;
- for variables that it is a _global_ variable.

Hiding static inside functions is not a good coding practice since it
hides scope of the variable. And if you look into the kernel code, I
believe the use you are proposing is in minority.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko