On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 09:27 +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> >
>> > On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 16:11 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 01:03 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 02:17:24 PM Andy Shevchenko
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Switch to use a generic UUID API instead of custom approach.
>> > > > > It
>> > > > > allows to
>> > > > > define UUIDs, compare them, and validate.
>> > > []
>> > >
>> > Summon initial author of the UUID library.
>> >
>> > Summary: the API of comparison functions is rather strange. What the
>> > point to not take pointers directly? (Moreover I hope compiler too
>> > clever not to make a copy of constant arguments there)
>> >
>> > I could only imagine the case you are trying to avoid temporary
>> > variables for constants like NULL_UUID.
>> >
>> > Issue with this is the ugliness in the users of that, in
>> > particularly
>> > present in ACPI (drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c).
>> >
>> > I would like to have more clear interface for that. Perhaps we may
>> > add
>> > something like
>> >
>> > cmp_p(pointer, non-pointer);
>> > cmp_pp(pointer, pointer);
>> >
>> > to not break existing API for now.
>> >
>> > It would be useful for many cases in the kernel.
>> You can take a look at the drivers/acpi/apei/erst.c for uuid_le_cmp
>> usage.
>>
>> #define
>> CPER_CREATOR_PSTORE \
>> UUID_LE(0x75a574e3, 0x5052, 0x4b29, 0x8a, 0x8e, 0xbe,
>> 0x2c, \
>> 0x64, 0x90, 0xb8, 0x9d)
>>
>> if (uuid_le_cmp(rcd->hdr.creator_id, CPER_CREATOR_PSTORE) !=
>> 0)
>> goto skip;
>>
>> Looks better?
>
> I don't quite understand the issues with
>
> if (uuid_le_cmp(&rcd->hdr.creator_id, &CPER_CREATOR_PSTORE) != 0)
I tried to make uuid_le looks like a primitive data type and UUID
constant looks like primitive type constants if possible. If we can
define data as uuid_le/be, then it will look just like that. But if
there are too many places we cannot use uuid_le/be directly, I am OK
to convert the interface to use pointer instead.
> or, like I mentioned previously, we may introduce _cmp_p() and use like
>
> if (uuid_le_cmp_p(&rcd->hdr.creator_id, CPER_CREATOR_PSTORE) != 0)
Personally, I don't like this interface. It is better for two
parameters to have same data type.
> if it looks better (again, I don't know if compiler is going to copy the last argument).
>
>>
>> This is the typical use case in mind when I write the uuid.h.
>>
>> As for uuid_le_cmp usage in drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c,
>>
>> if (!uuid_le_cmp(*(uuid_le *)gdata->section_type,
>> CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {
>
> Ditto
>
> if (!uuid_le_cmp_p((uuid_le *)gdata->section_type,
> CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {
>
>>
>> The code looks not good mainly because acpi_hest_generic_data is not
>> defined with uuid_le in mind.
>>
>> struct acpi_hest_generic_data {
>> u8 section_type[16];
>> u32 error_severity;
>> u16 revision;
>> u8 validation_bits;
>> u8 flags;
>> u32 error_data_length;
>> u8 fru_id[16];
>> u8 fru_text[20];
>> };
>>
>> If section_type was defined as uuid_le instead of u8[16], the
>> uuid_le_cmp usage would look better. So I suggest to use uuid_le/be
>> in
>> data structure definition in new code if possible.
>
> This is understandable for such structures, but we might get a UUID from
> a buffer which is pointer to u8. It's not possible to convert to uuid_*
> since it's too generic stuff and might require to introduce
> ACPI_TYPE_UUID with standardization and all necessary work. Apparently
> not the shortest way.
If this is just a special case that happens seldom, we can just work
around it with *(uuid_le/be *)buf. If it is common, we can change the
interface or add a new interface.
Best Regards,
Huang, YIng
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +static const uuid_le ads_uuid =
>> > > > > + UUID_LE(0xdbb8e3e6, 0x5886, 0x4ba6,
>> > > > > + 0x87, 0x95, 0x13, 0x19, 0xf5, 0x2a, 0x96,
>> > > > > 0x6b);
>> > > > >
>> > > > > static bool acpi_enumerate_nondev_subnodes(acpi_handle scope,
>> > > > > const union
>> > > > > acpi_object
>> > > > > *desc,
>> > > > > @@ -138,7 +136,7 @@ static bool
>> > > > > acpi_enumerate_nondev_subnodes(acpi_handle scope,
>> > > > > || links->type != ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE)
>> > > > > break;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > - if (memcmp(uuid->buffer.pointer, ads_uuid,
>> > > > > sizeof(ads_uuid)))
>> > > > > + if (uuid_le_cmp(*(uuid_le *)uuid-
>> > > > > >buffer.pointer,
>> > > > > ads_uuid))
>> > > > Maybe it's too late, but I don't quite understand the pointer
>> > > > manipulations here.
>> > > >
>> > > > I can see why you need a type conversion (although it looks
>> > > > ugly),
>> > > > but why do you
>> > > > need to dereference it too?
>> > > The function takes that kind of type on input. The other variants
>> > > are
>> > > not compiled.
>> > > Perhaps we better change uuid_{lb}e_cmp() first to take normal
>> > > pointers, though I think the initial idea was to get type checking
>> > > at
>> > > compile time.
>> > >
>
> --
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Intel Finland Oy
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
