Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dell-laptop: move dell_smi_error() to dell-smbios

[Darren Hart]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:41:36PM +0100, MichaÅ KÄpieÅ wrote:
> > On Monday 29 February 2016 21:22:54 MichaÅ KÄpieÅ wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 24 February 2016 08:20:11 MichaÅ KÄpieÅ wrote:
> > > > > The dell_smi_error() method could be used by modules other than
> > > > > dell-laptop for convenient translation of SMBIOS request errors
> > > > > into errno values.  Thus, move it to dell-smbios.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: MichaÅ KÄpieÅ <kernel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 
> > > > >  drivers/platform/x86/dell-laptop.c |   14 --------------
> > > > >  drivers/platform/x86/dell-smbios.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  drivers/platform/x86/dell-smbios.h |    2 ++
> > > > >  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-laptop.c
> > > > > b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-laptop.c index 76064c8..cbafb95
> > > > > 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-laptop.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-laptop.c
> > > > > @@ -273,20 +273,6 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id
> > > > > dell_quirks[] __initconst = {
> > > > > 
> > > > >  	{ }
> > > > >  
> > > > >  };
> > > > > 
> > > > > -static inline int dell_smi_error(int value)
> > > > > -{
> > > > > -	switch (value) {
> > > > > -	case 0: /* Completed successfully */
> > > > > -		return 0;
> > > > > -	case -1: /* Completed with error */
> > > > > -		return -EIO;
> > > > > -	case -2: /* Function not supported */
> > > > > -		return -ENXIO;
> > > > > -	default: /* Unknown error */
> > > > > -		return -EINVAL;
> > > > > -	}
> > > > > -}
> > > > > -
> > > > > 
> > > > >  /*
> > > > >  
> > > > >   * Derived from information in smbios-wireless-ctl:
> > > > >   *
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-smbios.c
> > > > > b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-smbios.c index 2a4992a..942572f
> > > > > 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-smbios.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-smbios.c
> > > > > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> > > > > 
> > > > >  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > >  #include <linux/dmi.h>
> > > > > 
> > > > > +#include <linux/err.h>
> > > > > 
> > > > >  #include <linux/gfp.h>
> > > > >  #include <linux/mutex.h>
> > > > >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > > 
> > > > > @@ -39,6 +40,21 @@ static int da_command_code;
> > > > > 
> > > > >  static int da_num_tokens;
> > > > >  static struct calling_interface_token *da_tokens;
> > > > > 
> > > > > +int dell_smi_error(int value)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	switch (value) {
> > > > > +	case 0: /* Completed successfully */
> > > > > +		return 0;
> > > > > +	case -1: /* Completed with error */
> > > > > +		return -EIO;
> > > > > +	case -2: /* Function not supported */
> > > > > +		return -ENXIO;
> > > > > +	default: /* Unknown error */
> > > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dell_smi_error);
> > > > > +
> > > > > 
> > > > >  struct calling_interface_buffer *dell_smbios_get_buffer(void)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	mutex_lock(&buffer_mutex);
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-smbios.h
> > > > > b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-smbios.h index 4f69b16..52febe6
> > > > > 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-smbios.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-smbios.h
> > > > > @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ struct calling_interface_token {
> > > > > 
> > > > >  	};
> > > > >  
> > > > >  };
> > > > > 
> > > > > +int dell_smi_error(int value);
> > > > > +
> > > > > 
> > > > >  struct calling_interface_buffer *dell_smbios_get_buffer(void);
> > > > >  void dell_smbios_clear_buffer(void);
> > > > >  void dell_smbios_release_buffer(void);
> > > > 
> > > > And... here what about inline vs EXPORT_SYMBOL function? Just
> > > > asking...
> > > 
> > > Well, what about it? :)  The commit message is pretty explicit in
> > > describing what happens here, i.e. a previously static function is
> > > moved to another module so that it can be reused.  Thus, keeping the
> > > inline keyword makes no sense.  What exactly is your concern?
> > 
> > Just asking if this function should be or not be inline (of course in 
> > header file, not in module .c).
> 
> If you mark a function as inline in the header file, you have to provide
> its definition, otherwise you'll get a compilation error.  Given that
> this is in no way performance-critical code, I see no point in
> clobbering the header file with the body of this function.

Agreed, please leave it as is.

For a discussion on inline, please see:
CodingStyle: Chapter 15: The inline disease

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center