Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230616165034.3630141-1-michal.wilczynski@intel.com>
 <20230616165034.3630141-9-michal.wilczynski@intel.com> <CAJZ5v0hPY=nermvRKiyqGg4R+jLW13B-MUr0exEuEnw33VUj7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <699b327d-acea-c51d-874a-85133b74a73c@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <699b327d-acea-c51d-874a-85133b74a73c@intel.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 13:04:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jpcas1TLGVR5Cic-bz4YkkAVypShj0sfEKUmy+930vVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] acpi/nfit: Improve terminator line in acpi_nfit_ids
To:     "Wilczynski, Michal" <michal.wilczynski@intel.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        vishal.l.verma@intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, dave.jiang@intel.com,
        ira.weiny@intel.com, rui.zhang@intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 11:52 AM Wilczynski, Michal
<michal.wilczynski@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/29/2023 6:14 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 6:51 PM Michal Wilczynski
> > <michal.wilczynski@intel.com> wrote:
> >> Currently terminator line contains redunant characters.
> > Well, they are terminating the list properly AFAICS, so they aren't
> > redundant and the size of it before and after the change is actually
> > the same, isn't it?
>
> This syntax is correct of course, but we have an internal guidelines specifically
> saying that terminator line should NOT contain a comma at the end. Justification:
>
> "Terminator line is established for the data structure arrays which may have unknown,
> to the caller, sizes. The purpose of it is to stop iteration over an array and avoid
> out-of-boundary access. Nevertheless, we may apply a bit more stricter rule to avoid
> potential, but unlike, event of adding the entry after terminator, already at compile time.
> This will be achieved by not putting comma at the end of terminator line"

This certainly applies to any new code.

The existing code, however, is what it is and the question is how much
of an improvement the given change makes.

So yes, it may not follow the current rules for new code, but then it
may not be worth changing to follow these rules anyway.