Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <90b448ba-2d5c-b0a2-4716-a8470fe09af0@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:55:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/8] x86/e820: Refactor e820__range_remove
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Martin Fernandez <martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
        ardb@kernel.org, dvhart@infradead.org, andy@infradead.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org, rppt@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com,
        hughsient@gmail.com, alex.bazhaniuk@eclypsium.com,
        alison.schofield@intel.com, keescook@chromium.org
References: <20220425171526.44925-1-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
 <20220425171526.44925-6-martin.fernandez@eclypsium.com>
 <a02186b9-b72c-1484-2973-c59272ae0a7e@intel.com>
 <CAKgze5Y1bKUAqPHEY71y_puTmuV2K02qjt0qzwO-KA3SYio0Tw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKgze5Y1bKUAqPHEY71y_puTmuV2K02qjt0qzwO-KA3SYio0Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/26/22 10:37, Martin Fernandez wrote:
>> Also, in general, the naming is a bit verbose.  You might want to trim
>> some of those names down, like:
>>
>>> +static bool __init crypto_updater__should_update(const struct e820_entry
>>> *entry,
>>> +						 const void *data)
>>> +{
>>> +	const struct e820_crypto_updater_data *crypto_updater_data =
>>> +		(const struct e820_crypto_updater_data *)data;
> Yes I agree on this. Do you have any suggestions for these kind of
> functions? I want to explicitly state that these functions are in some of
> namespace and are different of the other ones.
> 
> In the end I don't think this is very harmful since these functions are one-time
> used (in a single place), is not the case that you have to use them everywhere..

Let's just start with the fact that this is a pointer to a structure
containing an enum that represents a single bit.  You could just pass
around an address to a bool:

	bool crypto_capable = *(bool *)data;

or even just pass and use the 'void *data' pointer as a value directly:

	bool crypto_capable = (bool)data;

That, for one, would get rid of some of the naming craziness.

If it were me, and I *really* wanted to keep the full types, I would
have just condensed that line down to:

	struct e820_crypto_updater_data *crypto_data = data;

Yeah, it _can_ be const, but it buys you practically nothing in this
case and only hurts readability.