[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230613193440.1940c3a7@bootlin.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 19:34:40 +0200
From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/12] minmax: Introduce {min,max}_array()
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:08:08 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 11:00 AM Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:10:40 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:30 PM Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Introduce min_array() (resp max_array()) in order to get the
> > > > minimal (resp maximum) of values present in an array.
> > >
> > > Some comments below, after addressing them,
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
>
> ...
>
> > > > + typeof(array) __array = (array); \
> > >
> > > We have __must_be_array()
> >
> > Using __must_be_array() will lead to some failure.
> > Indeed, we can have:
> > --- 8< ---
> > int *buff
> > ...
> > min = min_array(buff, nb_item);
> > --- 8< ---
> >
> > In this case, __must_be_array() will report that buff is not an array.
>
> Oh, I missed that.
>
> > To avoid any confusion, what do you think if I renamed {min,max}_array()
> > to {min,max}_buffer() and replace __array by __buff and use *(__buff + xxx)
> > instead of array[xxx] in the macro.
>
> But functionally it's still against an array.
>
> I would stick with "array" in the name, but add a comment why
> __must_be_array() is not used. If we need a stricter variant, we may
> add a new wrapper with that check. That said, I think we can use
> __array[0] and similar indexed accesses.
>
Right, I will provide an updated version on the next iteration.
Thanks for your feedback.
Hervé
Powered by blists - more mailing lists