Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] esp_scsi: De-duplicate PIO routines

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Hannes Reinecke wrote:


In the case of send_cmd_residual, that would mean a second #ifdef 
added to esp_data_bytes_sent() where it gets used. I'm happy to comply 
but I fear that all these #ifdefs may harm readability...

There are already other variables in struct esp that may go unused, 
such as dma_regs, that don't have #ifdefs to elide them. Are these 
also problematic in some way?

The unused fields in the struct are not so much an issue; in fact, it 
rather complicated things when having individual fields in the struct 
surrounded by CONFIG_XXX, as then the order of the fields would change 
depending on the configuration. Which makes it really hard to debug ..


True enough. We agree that this #ifdef is undesirable. And yet when I 
tried it, I found an unexpected readability benefit to your suggestion:

#ifdef CONFIG_SCSI_ESP_PIO
        u8 __iomem              *fifo_reg;
        int                     send_cmd_error;
        u32                     send_cmd_residual;
#endif

This grouping does help convey the purpose of these struct members, even 
though the #ifdef is meant for the compiler not for the human reader.

So maybe it makes sense to group these definitions (they are all the same 
size):

        /* These are used by esp_scsi_send_pio_cmd() */
        u8 __iomem              *fifo_reg;
        int                     send_cmd_error;
        u32                     send_cmd_residual;

However, the function declaration really is a worry, as the actual 
function body only exists when the config option is enabled. So either 
add a dummy function or surround the function declaration by 
CONFIG_ESP_PIO.
Otherwise I think Dan Carpenter and the likes are guaranteed to send you 
a nice mail complaining about this ...


Do static checkers really complain about this? I think the validity of an 
extern can't be known until the final linkage is done.

At that point the checker may complain that no compilation unit references 
a symbol in a header.

But this would lead to false positives where a header file is shared by 
separate programs which share library code but not macros.

-- 

Cheers,

Hannes




[Index of Archives]     [Video for Linux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux S/390]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux