On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:41:38PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> Putting to a single line leads to "line over 80 characters" warning
> from checkpatch.pl. Would you still advice to do that?
Yes, the 80 cols rule is not a hard one. Rather, it should be overridden
by human good judgement, like making the code more readable.
> strncmp() is fine without these, but it'd be prudent in case someone
> decides to print these strings with printk(). Will do.
Someone does already use them in printk():
+ pr_err(PREFIX "Vendor \"%6.6s\" System \"%8.8s\" Revision 0x%x has a known ACPI BIOS problem.\n",
+ acpi_blacklist[i].oem_id,
+ acpi_blacklist[i].oem_table_id,
+ acpi_blacklist[i].oem_revision);
> 'data' here is private to the caller. So, I do not think we need to
> define the bits. Shall I change the name to 'driver_data' to make it
> more explicit?
You changed it to 'data'. It was a u32-used-as-boolean is_critical_error
before.
So you can just as well make it into flags and people can extend those
flags if needed. A flag bit should be enough in most cases anyway. If
they really need driver_data, then they can add a void * member.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
--
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
