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> <CAJZ5v0jpcas1TLGVR5Cic-bz4YkkAVypShj0sfEKUmy+930vVA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0jpcas1TLGVR5Cic-bz4YkkAVypShj0sfEKUmy+930vVA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 13:13:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hUiZy+yxd9mZoLM99194N0u42+UCms8Fm8s4YpkM1yFg@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:     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 1:04 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

This is a bit like housing in a city.

Usually, there are strict requirements that must be followed while
constructing a new building, but existing buildings are not
reconstructed to follow them in the majority of cases.  It may not
even be a good idea to do that.