[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250113103306.5b4f8f86@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:33:06 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <anton.nadezhdin@...el.com>,
<przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, <milena.olech@...el.com>,
<arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>, <richardcochran@...il.com>, "Karol
Kolacinski" <karol.kolacinski@...el.com>, Rinitha S <sx.rinitha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 08/13] ice: use rd32_poll_timeout_atomic in
ice_read_phy_tstamp_ll_e810
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:18:05 -0800 Jacob Keller wrote:
> > Ack, and short hands make sense. But both rd32_poll_timeout_atomic and
> > the exiting rd32_poll_timeout have a single user.
>
> The intention with introducing these is to help make it easier for other
> developers to use poll_timeout and friends throughout the driver.
> There's only one user now, but my intention had been that we'd see more
> as it becomes more known and is easier to use.
IMHO the ease of use gain is equal to the loss of generality (driver
local flavor of a common function will make contributing outside the
driver harder).
To be clear it's not a blocker, I'm only complaining because there was
a bug in the other patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists