From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932943AbXBTNJt (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:09:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932945AbXBTNJt (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:09:49 -0500 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172]:26212 "EHLO mgw-ext13.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932943AbXBTNJs convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:09:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/44 take 2] [UBI] startup code From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Frank Haverkamp , Thomas Gleixner , David Woodhouse , Josh Boyer In-Reply-To: <20070219105927.GB16930@infradead.org> References: <20070217165424.5845.4390.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20070217165454.5845.30875.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20070219105927.GB16930@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:00:56 +0200 Message-Id: <1171976456.4039.21.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-1.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2007 13:00:56.0364 (UTC) FILETIME=[28E93EC0:01C754EF] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:59 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 06:54:54PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > +/* UBI headers must take 64 bytes. The below is a hacky way to ensure this */ > > +static int __ubi_check_ec_hdr_size[(UBI_EC_HDR_SIZE == 64) - 1] > > + __attribute__ ((__unused__)); > > +static int __ubi_check_ec_hdr_size[(UBI_VID_HDR_SIZE == 64) - 1] > > + __attribute__ ((__unused__)); > > please use BUILD_BUG_ON instead. Will be done, thanks. > > + > > +static int ubi_attach_mtd_dev(const char *mtd_dev, int vid_hdr_offset, > > + int data_offset); > > +static void ubi_destroy_dev(int ubi_num); > > Can you reorder the code to avoid all these forward declarations please? Could you please submit a CodingStyle patch that would contain a requirement to use the "higher-level functions at the bottom, lower-layer at top"? Because I just use the opposite. > > + /* Attach MTD devices */ > > + for (i = 0; i < mtd_devs; i++) { > > + struct mtd_dev_param *p = &mtd_dev_param[i]; > > + > > + cond_resched(); > > + err = -EINVAL; > > This looks very odd. What exactly? > > +module_param_call(mtd, ubi_mtd_param_parse, NULL, NULL, 000); > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(mtd, "MTD devices to attach. Parameter format: " > > + "mtd=[,,]. " > > + "Multiple \"mtd\" parameters may be specified.\n" > > + "MTD devices may be specified by their number or name. " > > + "Optional \"vid_hdr_offs\" and \"data_offs\" parameters " > > + "specify UBI VID header position and data starting " > > + "position to be used by UBI.\n" > > + "Example: mtd=content,1984,2048 mtd=4 - attach MTD device" > > + "with name content using VID header offset 1984 and data " > > + "start 2048, and MTD device number 4 using default " > > + "offsets"); > > This is a very odd paramater interface. We really don't want drivers to use > module_param_call directly. You probably want various module_param_array calls > instead. Why not? We tried to avoid this but found out that this is the most decent interface. Specific advises are welcome. Thank you, Artem. -- Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)