Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-106719-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <c4236382-d3c8-4560-9a95-f90effcf6d88@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 22:47:19 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] caif: Use UTILITY_NAME_LENGTH instead of hard-coding 16
Content-Language: en-MW
To: Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@marvell.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
References: <af10f5a3236d47fd183487c9dcba3b3b3c66b595.1710584144.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
 <20240318032133.GA1312783@maili.marvell.com>
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20240318032133.GA1312783@maili.marvell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Le 18/03/2024 à 04:21, Ratheesh Kannoth a écrit :
> On 2024-03-16 at 15:46:10, Christophe JAILLET (christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr) wrote:
>> UTILITY_NAME_LENGTH is 16. So better use the former when defining the
>> 'utility_name' array. This makes the intent clearer when it is used around
>> line 260.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
>> ---
>>   net/caif/cfctrl.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/caif/cfctrl.c b/net/caif/cfctrl.c
>> index 8480684f2762..b6d9462f92b9 100644
>> --- a/net/caif/cfctrl.c
>> +++ b/net/caif/cfctrl.c
>> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ int cfctrl_linkup_request(struct cflayer *layer,
>>   	u8 tmp8;
>>   	struct cfctrl_request_info *req;
>>   	int ret;
>> -	char utility_name[16];
>> +	char utility_name[UTILITY_NAME_LENGTH];
> Reverse xmas tree.

Hi,

I'll update and repost when net-next is reopened, but honestly, looking 
at this file, changing this to reverse xmas style won't change that much 
for the overall coding style!

Moreover, as said by Dan, it is not really easy to understand the wishes 
of different maintainers. Should I have updated the lay-out, someone 
could have argued that patches should be 1 thing at a time.

CJ

> 
>>   	struct cfpkt *pkt;
>>   	struct cflayer *dn = cfctrl->serv.layer.dn;
>>
>> --
>> 2.44.0
>>
> 
>