From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753329AbcBVJN7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:13:59 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]:33494 "EHLO mail-lf0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752569AbcBVJNy (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 04:13:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:13:50 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBLxJlwaWXFhA==?= To: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= Cc: Darren Hart , Matthew Garrett , Darek Stojaczyk , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] dell-wmi: enable receiving WMI events on Dell Vostro V131 Message-ID: <20160222091350.GA8471@eudyptula.hq.kempniu.pl> References: <20160121090401.GR7192@pali> <1455634230-1487-1-git-send-email-kernel@kempniu.pl> <1455634230-1487-4-git-send-email-kernel@kempniu.pl> <20160220012457.GC23707@dvhart-mobl5.amr.corp.intel.com> <20160222085650.GA8322@eudyptula.hq.kempniu.pl> <20160222090314.GB4606@pali> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20160222090314.GB4606@pali> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > Pali's point about documenting the hardcoded values and eliminating the code > > > duplication with a function (inline) is a good one. > > > > I plan to only put a comment next to 0x51534554 as 0x10000 is apparently > > just something pulled out of a hat (as the link provided in the commit > > message proves) and input[3] should be self-explanatory due to the name > > of the variable whose value is put into it. > > Maybe you can add documentation which we got from Dell on some ML about > this SMI call. Similarly what I added in dell-laptop.c... Sure, I can do that. > > By the way, is there any kernel-wide or subsystem-wide policy for > > marking a function inline? I mean, this is hardly time-critical code, > > so is your suggestion to make it inline just a preference or am I > > unaware of some rule? > > IIRC recent versions of gcc ignores "inline" keyword and inline > functions as needed when doing optimizations. This was my hunch as well, but I couldn't find any proof immediately, hence the question. -- Best regards, Michał Kępień