On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 02:40:59PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 09:58:48AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 2:12 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 07:55:27PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > Instead of repeating the same code and reduce possible miss > > > > of READ_ONCE(), split line_get_debounce_period() heler out > > > > and use in the existing cases. > > > > > > > > > > helper > > > > > > > > > Not a fan of this change. > > > > > > > Yeah, sorry but NAK. READ_ONCE() is well known and tells you what the > > code does. Arbitrary line_get_debounce_period() makes me have to look > > it up. > > We have setter, but not getter. It looks confusing, more over, the setter makes > much more than just set. Hence another way to solve this is make clear (by > changing name) that the setter is not _just_ a setter. > As I mentioned elsewhere, the side effects of the setter are irrelevant to the caller, so from their point of view it is _just_ a setter. Calling it something else would actually be more confusing. Cheers, Kent.