On 03/25/2010 11:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> +int sws_rw_buffer_init(int writing)
>> +{
>> + BUG_ON(sws_writer_buffer || sws_writer_buffer_pos);
>
> Please don't do that. Fail the operation instead. You can also use WARN_ON
> or WARN if you _really_ want the user to notice the failure.
It's not a failure, it's a bug when we leak memory or forgot to
read/write all data.
> BUG_ON's like this are annoying like hell for testers who trigger them.
I think BUG is appropriate here (the system or image is in an
inconsitent state for the latter condition), but if you prefer the
WARN-family here, I can switch it to that.
>> + if (writing) {
>> + ret = sws_io_ops->write_page(sws_writer_buffer, NULL);
>> + clear_page(sws_writer_buffer);
>
> Why do we need that clear_page()?
Functionally for nothing, it was for my sakeness. Will remove.
>> +int sws_rw_buffer_flush_page(int writing)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> + if (writing && sws_writer_buffer_pos)
>> + ret = sws_io_ops->write_page(sws_writer_buffer, NULL);
>> + sws_writer_buffer_pos = writing ? 0 : PAGE_SIZE;
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>
> I'd split the above into two functions, one for writing and the other for
> reading.
>
> Doing the same with sws_rw_buffer() (under a better name), for the sake of
> clarity, also might make some sense, apparently.
Do you mean adding hib*_buffer_read + hib*_buffer_write which would call
static hib*_rw_buffer? sws_rw_buffer has much common code for R and W,
so I would not make 2 functions from that.
Nigel, you use _rw_ functions in toi, are there any pros opposing to _r_
+ _w_ (apart from exporting twice as symbols)?
thanks,
--
js
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
