Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754229AbdHURE1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:04:27 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:39548 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753546AbdHUREY (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:04:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:04:15 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Kani, Toshimitsu" Cc: "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "lenb@kernel.org" , "mchehab@kernel.org" , "tony.luck@intel.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ACPI / blacklist: add acpi_match_platform_list() Message-ID: <20170821170415.kttnqiwj2fkntsc7@pd.tnic> References: <20170818194644.14538-1-toshi.kani@hpe.com> <20170818194644.14538-2-toshi.kani@hpe.com> <20170821112657.hrtjoeagxhc67rrr@pd.tnic> <1503333107.2042.163.camel@hpe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1503333107.2042.163.camel@hpe.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1331 Lines: 34 On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:41:38PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > Putting to a single line leads to "line over 80 characters" warning > from checkpatch.pl. Would you still advice to do that? Yes, the 80 cols rule is not a hard one. Rather, it should be overridden by human good judgement, like making the code more readable. > strncmp() is fine without these, but it'd be prudent in case someone > decides to print these strings with printk(). Will do. Someone does already use them in printk(): + pr_err(PREFIX "Vendor \"%6.6s\" System \"%8.8s\" Revision 0x%x has a known ACPI BIOS problem.\n", + acpi_blacklist[i].oem_id, + acpi_blacklist[i].oem_table_id, + acpi_blacklist[i].oem_revision); > 'data' here is private to the caller. So, I do not think we need to > define the bits. Shall I change the name to 'driver_data' to make it > more explicit? You changed it to 'data'. It was a u32-used-as-boolean is_critical_error before. So you can just as well make it into flags and people can extend those flags if needed. A flag bit should be enough in most cases anyway. If they really need driver_data, then they can add a void * member. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.