On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 04:16:12PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > 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. Yeah we can sed this anytime later we want to, but we need to get the foot in the door. There's also a pile more of these all over. Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> on the series, maybe it helps? And yes let's merge this through drm-misc. -Daniel > > > > > > >> 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 -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
