On Wed, 19 Jan 2022, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue 2022-01-18 23:24:47, Lucas De Marchi wrote: >> Add some helpers under lib/string_helpers.h so they can be used >> throughout the kernel. When I started doing this there were 2 other >> previous attempts I know of, not counting the iterations each of them >> had: >> >> 1) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20191023131308.9420-1-jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx/ >> 2) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210215142137.64476-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/#t >> >> Going through the comments I tried to find some common ground and >> justification for what is in here, addressing some of the concerns >> raised. >> >> d. This doesn't bring onoff() helper as there are some places in the >> kernel with onoff as variable - another name is probably needed for >> this function in order not to shadow the variable, or those variables >> could be renamed. Or if people wanting <someprefix> >> try to find a short one > > I would call it str_on_off(). > > And I would actually suggest to use the same style also for > the other helpers. > > The "str_" prefix would make it clear that it is something with > string. There are other <prefix>_on_off() that affect some > functionality, e.g. mute_led_on_off(), e1000_vlan_filter_on_off(). > > The dash '_' would significantly help to parse the name. yesno() and > onoff() are nicely short and kind of acceptable. But "enabledisable()" > is a puzzle. > > IMHO, str_yes_no(), str_on_off(), str_enable_disable() are a good > compromise. > > The main motivation should be code readability. You write the > code once. But many people will read it many times. Open coding > is sometimes better than misleading macro names. > > That said, I do not want to block this patchset. If others like > it... ;-) I don't mind the names either way. Adding the prefix and dashes is helpful in that it's possible to add the functions first and convert users at leisure, though with a bunch of churn, while using names that collide with existing ones requires the changes to happen in one go. What I do mind is grinding this series to a halt once again. I sent a handful of versions of this three years ago, with inconclusive bikeshedding back and forth, eventually threw my hands up in disgust, and walked away. > > >> e. One alternative to all of this suggested by Christian König >> (43456ba7-c372-84cc-4949-dcb817188e21@xxxxxxx) would be to add a >> printk format. But besides the comment, he also seemed to like >> the common function. This brought the argument from others that the >> simple yesno()/enabledisable() already used in the code is easier to >> remember and use than e.g. %py[DOY] > > Thanks for not going this way :-) > >> Last patch also has some additional conversion of open coded cases. I >> preferred starting with drm/ since this is "closer to home". >> >> I hope this is a good summary of the previous attempts and a way we can >> move forward. >> >> Andrew Morton, Petr Mladek, Andy Shevchenko: if this is accepted, my >> proposal is to take first 2 patches either through mm tree or maybe >> vsprintf. Last patch can be taken later through drm. > > I agree with Andy that it should go via drm tree. It would make it > easier to handle potential conflicts. > > Just in case, you decide to go with str_yes_no() or something similar. > Mass changes are typically done at the end on the merge window. > The best solution is when it can be done by a script. > > Best Regards, > Petr -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
