On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:47 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 03:17:16PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 13:29 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 08:06:32PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > Get rid of macros and implement their functionality in place. > > > > This > > > > will also > > > > help to enable runtime PM in more clean way later. > > > > > > Really? Because now the code is harder to follow from a "what is > > > this > > > doing" point of view as you have to duplicate logic in a number of > > > different places. > > > > We have number of places in kernel where we take reference count of > > something and then using spin lock. I don't see how this makes > > harder to > > follow. > > You are "open-coding" these macros, for no other reason than to > silence > a tool that is incorrect. These macros themselves not the best idea in the first place. > This makes further changes in the code harder > to make. I have another opinion (based on my further change), but... > > So, the function needs annotation for checker and flags parameter > > will > > go like a) taking address of it, b) dereference it. > > > > For me it will look not shiny. > > This looks worse than the code today, a very non-shiny patch as-is, > sorry, but I'm not going to take this. ...I just give up. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
