On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:12:39PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
>> In eeepc_rfkill_exit, we implement the same code four times. Pull out a
>> function that cleans up an rfkill object to get rid of the duplication.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c | 34 ++++++++++++++--------------------
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
>> index e92ea41..73e8d39 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c
>> @@ -823,35 +823,29 @@ static char EEEPC_RFKILL_NODE_1[] = "\\_SB.PCI0.P0P5";
>> static char EEEPC_RFKILL_NODE_2[] = "\\_SB.PCI0.P0P6";
>> static char EEEPC_RFKILL_NODE_3[] = "\\_SB.PCI0.P0P7";
>>
>> +static inline void eeepc_destroy_rfkill(struct rfkill **rfkill)
>> +{
>> + if (!*rfkill)
>> + return;
>> + rfkill_unregister(*rfkill);
>> + rfkill_destroy(*rfkill);
>> + *rfkill = NULL;
>> +}
>
> In this case the savings is 6 lines at the cost of some legibility as double
> pointers are arguably harder to read, and definitely easier to screw up ;-)
>
> I appreciate the goal, but I'm not convinced it is worth it.
Fair enough. If anything the following would be slightly less complicated:
#define eeepc_destroy_rfkill(rfkill) \
do { \
if (rfkill) { \
rfkill_unregister(rfkill); \
rfkill_destroy(rfkill); \
rkfill = NULL; \
} \
} while (0);
I don't think any new eeepc's are being produced, so this code is
unlikely to change anyway. Let's leave it as is.
Thanks,
Frans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
