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,SPF_PASS 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 7C348C433ED for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3348761357 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244717AbhDLSKc (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:10:32 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46956 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241390AbhDLSK3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:10:29 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15B2C061574; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:10:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id j7so612939pgi.3; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:10:09 -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=BwQeib1H2LAmGn6CcZ+mNA7UzYFYCJisfTalxUklkbg=; b=amGzCJApoGu5e4PDCb+QRLbBrOkO737RtGvuuH1Ji2RUHO4a+oK3sBIZvypXPzpvl5 xEL5egDQ+CET3t8oS4RAtmrYUvxwDcyZUuIDM/oQj8H4j6ZkY6InUuuDrLHR+H06wh0s BA/x3494EzhOaYwVWLmu0iKg0Z7x40+Tnmaa1nydnMqwH7TlHkwMkgk0iy5NtfOWNCQR cCFHhYIZwJ/2TsP1XiUbz7VXgKNGLSTlLBOoIn6bWFW/S+puFvd+xa9NahOzEybY49pn 5Iqekg3nDkoYHpJGPI5jRygkAhnzsL3m8TGox95BAoY/8lcjLxACWhNp5JxFmyC3nuQj pizA== 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=BwQeib1H2LAmGn6CcZ+mNA7UzYFYCJisfTalxUklkbg=; b=iHUbcrchQqjCgzsAQnmYBhRI55OVDaHaUIPs93FP9kx6LKiBGijANzqpidovJfkSfA bQuTWD42ZAlQocGQy3iqRA5ta6iqBjYWzMHz4nEt0LfyRHTinc62e0TdlJyz50tLfdH9 vFKlL6hn/CuWhsNkAgh5FwZe5WQRhjwBzBwHG+tzsrD2X+Je/hQnh2qbY8ltgCPUIRHp K8HJ9zkGSzJbUh/65wcRJSeot7jWs6spQvmMA852Wm6TdE4I7QTslSRFKIPE2k/NI3ih L3MO8I+JJ97unh54s93A6Jj07r7LiDYV9ZwlQRCeNP9RCWq+3hbVFPQ6nxGApxiRKWzD HLog== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532wYUgR1sCsmK4LvEkKoHrs/BYSnRZfz7kWLB72TTYBN+Ve35qo LLooPMRxNbAFNY1kBtYAOpqlkr9YPaeD3cnqlqA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy0ASYFfIcOodmZNM4t3VSZ05VyiWvtLvALdkjI8ejUmfwl7L0tbMy91yEJ/Y4licvfkrYTLQQ+6EMRp0uXMjI= X-Received: by 2002:a63:c48:: with SMTP id 8mr27784069pgm.74.1618251009237; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:10:09 -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 21:09:53 +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-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 9:05 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 7:47 PM Andy Shevchenko > wrote: > > > > 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. > > Not really. get_device() returns a pointer. > > > Personally I don't think this is a good idea to deviate. > > Well, exactly. :-) > > > Note the acpi_bus_get_acpi_device() > > This also returns a pointer. Is it okay to return a pointer in acpi_dev_get() then? I will do it that way if there are no objections. > > / acpi_bus_put_acpi_device() as well. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko