lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] tpm_tis_core: add optional max xfer size check
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Andrey Pronin <apronin@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 09:13:51PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 06:39:04PM -0700, Andrey Pronin wrote:
>>
>> > +static inline u16 tpm_tis_max_xfer_size(struct tpm_tis_data *data)
>> > +{
>> > + return data->phy_ops->max_xfer_size;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +static inline bool tpm_tis_burstcnt_is_valid(struct tpm_tis_data *data,
>> > + u16 burstcnt)
>> > +{
>> > + return (tpm_tis_max_xfer_size(data) == 0)
>> > + || (burstcnt <= tpm_tis_max_xfer_size(data));
>> > +}
>>
>> We don't need these accessors, just open code it in the one call
>> site. That is more clear as the ==0 case is important to understand
>> that the flow is correct.
>>
>> BTW, I dodn't think || as the start of a line was cannonical kernel
>> style.. Did checkpatch accept that?
>>
>> Jason
>
> You mean completely open code it inside get_burstcount()? Will do.
> checkpatch.pl had no problems with it, but I can move it to the end
> of the line, if it feels better.
>

I would suggest to use checkpatch --strict; it will tell you. It will
also ask you to align continuation lines with '(' on the previous
line. On that, I would suggest to follow the style used in the file(s)
you are working on (or follow guidance from the maintainer).

Thanks,
Guenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-15 06:21    [W:0.045 / U:0.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site