Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: concat: refactor concat_lock/concat_unlock

From: Chris Packham
Date: Wed May 22 2019 - 16:56:28 EST


On 23/05/19 8:30 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 2:08 AM Chris Packham
> <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> concat_lock() and concat_unlock() only differed in terms of the mtd_xx
>> operation they called. Refactor them to use a common helper function and
>> pass mtd_lock or mtd_unlock as an argument.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c | 41 +++++++++--------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c
>> index cbc5925e6440..9514cd2db63c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdconcat.c
>> @@ -451,7 +451,8 @@ static int concat_erase(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct erase_info *instr)
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> -static int concat_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
>> +static int __concat_xxlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len,
>> + int (*mtd_op)(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len))
>> {
>> struct mtd_concat *concat = CONCAT(mtd);
>> int i, err = -EINVAL;
>> @@ -470,7 +471,7 @@ static int concat_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
>> else
>> size = len;
>>
>> - err = mtd_lock(subdev, ofs, size);
>> + err = mtd_op(subdev, ofs, size);
>> if (err)
>> break;
>>
>> @@ -485,38 +486,14 @@ static int concat_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> -static int concat_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
>> +static int concat_lock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
>> {
>> - struct mtd_concat *concat = CONCAT(mtd);
>> - int i, err = 0;
>> -
>> - for (i = 0; i < concat->num_subdev; i++) {
>> - struct mtd_info *subdev = concat->subdev[i];
>> - uint64_t size;
>> -
>> - if (ofs >= subdev->size) {
>> - size = 0;
>> - ofs -= subdev->size;
>> - continue;
>> - }
>> - if (ofs + len > subdev->size)
>> - size = subdev->size - ofs;
>> - else
>> - size = len;
>> -
>> - err = mtd_unlock(subdev, ofs, size);
>> - if (err)
>> - break;
>> -
>> - len -= size;
>> - if (len == 0)
>> - break;
>> -
>> - err = -EINVAL;
>> - ofs = 0;
>> - }
>> + return __concat_xxlock(mtd, ofs, len, mtd_lock);
>> +}
>>
>> - return err;
>> +static int concat_unlock(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
>> +{
>> + return __concat_xxlock(mtd, ofs, len, mtd_unlock);
>> }
>>
>> static void concat_sync(struct mtd_info *mtd)
>
> Not sure if it passing a function pointer is worth it. bool is_lock would
> also do it. But this is a matter of taste, I guess. :)

I briefly considered that. But since mtd_lock(), mtd_unlock() and
mtd_is_locked() all take the same arguments I figured it'd benefit from
some type checking. A bool wouldn't work (assuming I can convince you
about 2/2) but an enum mtd_op or int flags would do the trick if you
want me to change it.

>
> Reviewed-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>
>