From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300B6C43462 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 17:48:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0DB61241 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 17:48:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244729AbhDLRsX (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 13:48:23 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42114 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S244664AbhDLRsN (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 13:48:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83298C061574; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id n38so9680908pfv.2; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:47:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DgnMLW54yYGnPtnA18TLaPuXsRrPLh79PL0NZM2fdPQ=; b=Be+gUYKbpdhT4uDF8LSr5fHUGrNeSx+aTJfi1LpNdnx3CA+O0j0yuRFQn5hopywj/z 4/sCz0bdE96p4OiNSc+Qq3PdmvMPvenv6+tixlU7+FSUPBpx2oHIGFoXDWzGCcf5EQ3D pRTZ95C/RkQFIbvAbhEB05EFzU+oB2fSqKwGFBEDoUOtOdxQz28nz6TwQ6PjtvcO1ldI APJ9Uy2Y0roe2ZUmJrJ3L/6qgwObttfX1+uzfFm3QY18lDiVxUHXH1OQhOpTpJi+SAjZ 3pCsjbeeVgdiCtNZ+OlZ7cyG+igkop/b68lhqlD9UO9VzAOmq9OZjiMFtDQU87TOhsbE HRkw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DgnMLW54yYGnPtnA18TLaPuXsRrPLh79PL0NZM2fdPQ=; b=KluN4/euxfSWqVCnEK05XzZoeBe9VZpalwY+g233FjjJ/uNvl8zJ8/RtThU9pB8+bW uUvtRSKt3o86ijcWfDwvCbCySDCVJUR8CcyqT3nZYZNzU6dxQoBPLCWkIovg0yBI0hZZ 5/N/QENpDYgQu1JKx7+IaQBdZu4RmLJksL1KegIhLFsbKDqlETgcXxQsHWYVhkVIm4Gj Dci2O2FRSD+gZ3zzwRZg5P00W9J5aZRALm3PrIQ8fK6rCBx15VVwvdQqPIsCnSO7U/cJ wXekrDpiS6YZFxxCy4tAVq0rA7GubE0/+UkKFAOii0ZmgsfgOOAo2RjPYUEQOscC5RM1 U+Iw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531VNQr0+8l6a5FU6TGd3x0OmfSqjb/BQxhUgvYjRBkdmCuRVBBU EMNGK7KY163rvpypBg0LxCuAkKGjT3szja8PY7A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyoSw2Vf91WbKVp/GOwf/dOiztGtKwfq/0OXFArxK89COKnoHklpij+YWCB0SnEzEG8ygf+b+MBcSHwijK7dX4= X-Received: by 2002:a62:e50f:0:b029:214:8e4a:ae46 with SMTP id n15-20020a62e50f0000b02902148e4aae46mr26154827pff.73.1618249674955; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 10:47:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210410134718.1942273-1-andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 20:47:38 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] ACPI: bus: Introduce acpi_dev_get() and reuse it in ACPI code To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Dwaipayan Ray , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Robert Moore , Erik Kaneda Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 8:32 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 3:47 PM Andy Shevchenko > wrote: ... > > static void get_acpi_device(void *dev) > > { > > - if (dev) > > - get_device(&((struct acpi_device *)dev)->dev); > > + acpi_dev_get(dev); > > I would do > > if (dev) > acpi_dev_get(dev); > > here. Hmm... I don't see a point. acpi_dev_get() guaranteed to perform this check. > > } > > +static inline void acpi_dev_get(struct acpi_device *adev) > > +{ > > + if (adev) > > + get_device(&adev->dev); > > And I would drop the adev check from here (because the code calling it > may be running with wrong assumptions if adev is NULL). Or it should > return adev and the caller should be held responsible for checking it > against NULL (if they care). But this follows the get_device() / put_device() logic. Personally I don't think this is a good idea to deviate. Note the acpi_bus_get_acpi_device() / acpi_bus_put_acpi_device() as well. > > +} -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko