Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/9] net/smc: introduce sub-functions for smc_clc_send_confirm_accept()

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

 





On 2023/12/11 17:47, Alexandra Winter wrote:


On 09.12.23 03:50, Wen Gu wrote:


On 2023/12/8 15:40, Wen Gu wrote:

There is a large if-else block in smc_clc_send_confirm_accept() and it
is better to split it into two sub-functions.

Suggested-by: Alexandra Winter <wintera@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
   net/smc/smc_clc.c | 196 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
   1 file changed, 114 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/smc/smc_clc.c b/net/smc/smc_clc.c
index 0fcb035..52b4ea9 100644
--- a/net/smc/smc_clc.c
+++ b/net/smc/smc_clc.c
@@ -998,6 +998,111 @@ int smc_clc_send_proposal(struct smc_sock *smc, struct smc_init_info *ini)
       return reason_code;
   }
   +static void smcd_clc_prep_confirm_accept(struct smc_connection *conn,
+                struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 *clc_v2,

checkpatch will complain 'Alignment should match open parenthesis' here.
But in order to make the length less than 80 columns, there seems to be
no other good way.

+                int first_contact, u8 version,
+                u8 *eid, struct smc_init_info *ini,
+                int *fce_len,
+                struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x *fce_v2x,
+                struct smc_clc_msg_trail *trl)
+{
<...>

+
+static void smcr_clc_prep_confirm_accept(struct smc_connection *conn,
+                struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 *clc_v2,

And here.

+                int first_contact, u8 version,
+                u8 *eid, struct smc_init_info *ini,
+                int *fce_len,
+                struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x *fce_v2x,
+                struct smc_clc_fce_gid_ext *gle,
+                struct smc_clc_msg_trail *trl)
+{
<...>



You could shorten the names of the functions

Thank you. I thought about that too, but I think shortening the name may
have an impact on the understanding.



I think the following may be another way out and checkpatch is happy:

+static void
+smcd_clc_prep_confirm_accept(struct smc_connection *conn,
+                             struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 *clc_v2,
+                             int first_contact, u8 version,
+                             u8 *eid, struct smc_init_info *ini,
+                             int *fce_len,
+                             struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x *fce_v2x,
+                             struct smc_clc_msg_trail *trl)

and

+static void
+smcr_clc_prep_confirm_accept(struct smc_connection *conn,
+                             struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 *clc_v2,
+                             int first_contact, u8 version,
+                             u8 *eid, struct smc_init_info *ini,
+                             int *fce_len,
+                             struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x *fce_v2x,
+                             struct smc_clc_fce_gid_ext *gle,
+                             struct smc_clc_msg_trail *trl)




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux