linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] iio: ltc2688: 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]

Message-ID: <01fec744-f3d4-b633-d3ce-bcd86a153132@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 20 Aug 2022 20:30:00 +0300
From:   Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] iio: ltc2688: Simplify using
 devm_regulator_*get_enable()

On 8/20/22 19:09, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 4:45 PM Matti Vaittinen
> <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 8/20/22 14:21, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:19:17 +0300
>>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>> +    static const char * const regulators[] = {"vcc", "iovcc"};
>>> trivial - slight preference for
>>>    { "vcc", "iovcc" };
>>>
>>> This isn't as important as for numeric values as we get some readability
>>> from the quotes but still nice to have.
>>
>> Right. I'll fix it.
> 
> And also make it a reversed xmas tree order.

can do.

> 
>>> For the whole static / vs non static. My personal preference is not
>>> to have the static marking but I don't care that much.
>>
>> I'd like to stick with the static here. I know this one particular array
>> does not have much of a footprint - but I'd like to encourage the habit
>> of considering the memory usage. This discussion serves as an example of
>> how unknown the impact of making const data static is. I didn't know
>> this myself until Sebastian educated me :)  Hence my strong preference
>> on keeping this 'static' as an example for others who are as ignorant as
>> I were ;) After all, having const data arrays static is quite an easy
>> way of improving things - and it really does matter when there is many
>> of arrays - or when they contain large data.
> 
> But still the same comment about global scope of the variable is applied.

I don't understand why you keep claiming the variable is global when it 
is not?

> As I explained before, hiding global variables inside a function is a
> bad code practice.

I don't really get what you mean here. And I definitely don't see any 
improvement if we would really use a global variable instead of a local one.

--Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~

Discuss - Estimate - Plan - Report and finally accomplish this:
void do_work(int time) __attribute__ ((const));