Re: [PATCH v2] staging: wfx: refactor to avoid duplication at hif_tx.c

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:38:33AM +0200, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
> Hello Tomer,
> 
> On Wednesday 5 August 2020 14:14:42 CEST Tomer Samara wrote:
> > 
> > Add functions wfx_full_send(), wfx_full_send_no_reply_async(),
> > wfx_full_send_no_reply() and wfx_full_send_no_reply_free()
> > which works as follow:
> > wfx_full_send() - simple wrapper for both wfx_fill_header()
> >                   and wfx_cmd_send().
> > wfx_full_send_no_reply_async() - wrapper for both but with
> >                                  NULL as reply and size zero.
> > wfx_full_send_no_reply() - same as wfx_full_send_no_reply_async()
> >                            but with false async value
> > wfx_full_send_no_reply_free() - same as wfx_full_send_no_reply()
> >                                 but also free the struct hif_msg.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tomer Samara <tomersamara98@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> >  - Changed these functions to static
> > 
> > drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >  1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c
> > index 5110f9b93762..17f668fa40a0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/hif_tx.c
> > @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static void wfx_fill_header(struct hif_msg *hif, int if_id,
> > 
> >  static void *wfx_alloc_hif(size_t body_len, struct hif_msg **hif)
> >  {
> > -       *hif = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hif_msg) + body_len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +       *hif = kzalloc(sizeof(*hif) + body_len, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> This change is not related to the rest of the patch. It should probably be
> split out.
> 
> >         if (*hif)
> >                 return (*hif)->body;
> >         else
> > @@ -123,9 +123,39 @@ int wfx_cmd_send(struct wfx_dev *wdev, struct hif_msg *request,
> >         return ret;
> >  }
> > 
> > +static int wfx_full_send(struct wfx_dev *wdev, struct hif_msg *hif, void *reply,
> > +                        size_t reply_len, bool async, int if_id, unsigned int cmd,
> > +                        int size)
> > +{
> > +       wfx_fill_header(hif, if_id, cmd, size);
> > +       return wfx_cmd_send(wdev, hif, reply, reply_len, async);
> > +}
> 
> This function takes 8 parameters. Are you sure it simplifies the code?
> 
> In add, it does two actions: modify hif and send it. I would keep these
> two actions separated.
> 
> > +
> > +static int wfx_full_send_no_reply_async(struct wfx_dev *wdev, struct hif_msg *hif, int if_id,
> > +                                       unsigned int cmd, int size, bool async)
> > +{
> > +       return wfx_full_send(wdev, hif, NULL, 0, async, if_id, cmd, size);
> > +}
> 
> Does it make sense to have a parameter 'async' to
> wfx_full_send_no_reply_async()? It is weird to call this function with
> async=false, no?
> 
> > +
> > +static int wfx_full_send_no_reply(struct wfx_dev *wdev, struct hif_msg *hif, int if_id,
> > +                                 unsigned int cmd, int size)
> > +{
> > +       return wfx_full_send_no_reply_async(wdev, hif, if_id, cmd, size, false);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int wfx_full_send_no_reply_free(struct wfx_dev *wdev, struct hif_msg *hif, int if_id,
> > +                                      unsigned int cmd, int size)
> > +{
> > +       int ret;
> > +
> > +       ret = wfx_full_send_no_reply(wdev, hif, if_id, cmd, size);
> > +       kfree(hif);
> > +       return ret;
> > +}
> 
> One more time, sending the data and releasing are unrelated actions.
> Indeed, it saves a few lines of code, but is it really an improvement?
> 
> > +
> >  // This function is special. After HIF_REQ_ID_SHUT_DOWN, chip won't reply to any
> >  // request anymore. We need to slightly hack struct wfx_hif_cmd for that job. Be
> > -// carefull to only call this funcion during device unregister.
> > +// careful to only call this function during device unregister.
> 
> Not related to the rest of the patch.
> 
> [...]
> 
> As it stands, I think this change does not improve the code. Obviously, it
> is a subjective opinion. What the other developers think about it?

I agree with you, this just makes things more complex for no good
reason.

Now dropped from my review queue.

thanks,

greg k-h