Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/3] lib/string_helpers: Add a few string helpers

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 05:15:02PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 04:16:12PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Tue 2022-01-18 23:24:47, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > >> Add some helpers under lib/string_helpers.h so they can be used
> > >> throughout the kernel. When I started doing this there were 2 other
> > >> previous attempts I know of, not counting the iterations each of them
> > >> had:
> > >>
> > >> 1) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20191023131308.9420-1-jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx/
> > >> 2) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210215142137.64476-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/#t
> > >>
> > >> Going through the comments I tried to find some common ground and
> > >> justification for what is in here, addressing some of the concerns
> > >> raised.
> > >>
> > >> d. This doesn't bring onoff() helper as there are some places in the
> > >>    kernel with onoff as variable - another name is probably needed for
> > >>    this function in order not to shadow the variable, or those variables
> > >>    could be renamed.  Or if people wanting  <someprefix>
> > >>    try to find a short one
> > >
> > > I would call it str_on_off().
> > >
> > > And I would actually suggest to use the same style also for
> > > the other helpers.
> > >
> > > The "str_" prefix would make it clear that it is something with
> > > string. There are other <prefix>_on_off() that affect some
> > > functionality, e.g. mute_led_on_off(), e1000_vlan_filter_on_off().
> > >
> > > The dash '_' would significantly help to parse the name. yesno() and
> > > onoff() are nicely short and kind of acceptable. But "enabledisable()"
> > > is a puzzle.
> > >
> > > IMHO, str_yes_no(), str_on_off(), str_enable_disable() are a good
> > > compromise.
> > >
> > > The main motivation should be code readability. You write the
> > > code once. But many people will read it many times. Open coding
> > > is sometimes better than misleading macro names.
> > >
> > > That said, I do not want to block this patchset. If others like
> > > it... ;-)
> >
> > I don't mind the names either way. Adding the prefix and dashes is
> > helpful in that it's possible to add the functions first and convert
> > users at leisure, though with a bunch of churn, while using names that
> > collide with existing ones requires the changes to happen in one go.
> >
> > What I do mind is grinding this series to a halt once again. I sent a
> > handful of versions of this three years ago, with inconclusive
> > bikeshedding back and forth, eventually threw my hands up in disgust,
> > and walked away.
>
> Yeah we can sed this anytime later we want to, but we need to get the foot
> in the door. There's also a pile more of these all over.
>
> Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
>
> on the series, maybe it helps? And yes let's merge this through drm-misc.

Ok, it seems we are reaching some agreement here then:

- Change it to use str_ prefix
- Wait -rc1 to avoid conflict
- Merge through drm-misc

I will re-send the series again soon.

Lucas De Marchi