From: "Jérôme Pouiller" <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
To: Tomer Samara <tomersamara98@gmail.com>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: wfx: refactor to avoid duplication at hif_tx.c
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:38:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2040746.q8W4dvF0dS@pc-42> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200805121442.GA31953@tsnow>
Hello Tomer,
On Wednesday 5 August 2020 14:14:42 CEST Tomer Samara wrote:
>
> Add functions wfx_full_send(), wfx_full_send_no_reply_async(),
> wfx_full_send_no_reply() and wfx_full_send_no_reply_free()
> which works as follow:
> wfx_full_send() - simple wrapper for both wfx_fill_header()
> and wfx_cmd_send().
> wfx_full_send_no_reply_async() - wrapper for both but with
> NULL as reply and size zero.
> wfx_full_send_no_reply() - same as wfx_full_send_no_reply_async()
> but with false async value
> wfx_full_send_no_reply_free() - same as wfx_full_send_no_reply()
> but also free the struct hif_msg.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomer Samara <tomersamara98@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Changed these functions to static
>
> drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c
> index 5110f9b93762..17f668fa40a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static void wfx_fill_header(struct hif_msg *hif, int if_id,
>
> static void *wfx_alloc_hif(size_t body_len, struct hif_msg **hif)
> {
> - *hif = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hif_msg) + body_len, GFP_KERNEL);
> + *hif = kzalloc(sizeof(*hif) + body_len, GFP_KERNEL);
This change is not related to the rest of the patch. It should probably be
split out.
> if (*hif)
> return (*hif)->body;
> else
> @@ -123,9 +123,39 @@ int wfx_cmd_send(struct wfx_dev *wdev, struct hif_msg *request,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int wfx_full_send(struct wfx_dev *wdev, struct hif_msg *hif, void *reply,
> + size_t reply_len, bool async, int if_id, unsigned int cmd,
> + int size)
> +{
> + wfx_fill_header(hif, if_id, cmd, size);
> + return wfx_cmd_send(wdev, hif, reply, reply_len, async);
> +}
This function takes 8 parameters. Are you sure it simplifies the code?
In add, it does two actions: modify hif and send it. I would keep these
two actions separated.
> +
> +static int wfx_full_send_no_reply_async(struct wfx_dev *wdev, struct hif_msg *hif, int if_id,
> + unsigned int cmd, int size, bool async)
> +{
> + return wfx_full_send(wdev, hif, NULL, 0, async, if_id, cmd, size);
> +}
Does it make sense to have a parameter 'async' to
wfx_full_send_no_reply_async()? It is weird to call this function with
async=false, no?
> +
> +static int wfx_full_send_no_reply(struct wfx_dev *wdev, struct hif_msg *hif, int if_id,
> + unsigned int cmd, int size)
> +{
> + return wfx_full_send_no_reply_async(wdev, hif, if_id, cmd, size, false);
> +}
> +
> +static int wfx_full_send_no_reply_free(struct wfx_dev *wdev, struct hif_msg *hif, int if_id,
> + unsigned int cmd, int size)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = wfx_full_send_no_reply(wdev, hif, if_id, cmd, size);
> + kfree(hif);
> + return ret;
> +}
One more time, sending the data and releasing are unrelated actions.
Indeed, it saves a few lines of code, but is it really an improvement?
> +
> // This function is special. After HIF_REQ_ID_SHUT_DOWN, chip won't reply to any
> // request anymore. We need to slightly hack struct wfx_hif_cmd for that job. Be
> -// carefull to only call this funcion during device unregister.
> +// careful to only call this function during device unregister.
Not related to the rest of the patch.
[...]
As it stands, I think this change does not improve the code. Obviously, it
is a subjective opinion. What the other developers think about it?
--
Jérôme Pouiller
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-10 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-05 12:14 [PATCH v2] staging: wfx: refactor to avoid duplication at hif_tx.c Tomer Samara
2020-08-10 9:38 ` Jérôme Pouiller [this message]
2020-08-18 14:02 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2040746.q8W4dvF0dS@pc-42 \
--to=jerome.pouiller@silabs.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomersamara98@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).