Re: [PATCH linux-next] lib/string_choices: Add str_locked_unlocked()/str_unlocked_locked() helper

[R Sundar]

On 18/11/24 01:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 5:48 AM R Sundar <prosunofficial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 16/11/24 01:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 9:44 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 4:47 PM R Sundar <prosunofficial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > +static inline const char *str_locked_unlocked(bool v)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       return v ? "locked" : "unlocked";
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +#define str_unlocked_locked(v)         str_locked_unlocked(!(v))
> > > >
> > > > The rest is sorted (okay, read_write() seems to be misplaced, fix that
> > > > in a separate change if you wish), please keep it that way (I believe
> > > > it should go before on_off).
> >
> > Thanks for the Review and Comments provided.
> >
> > Please correct me, If I am wrong.
> >
> > The function name should be in sorted order means,  str_read_write()
> > will go after str_on_off().
> >
> > For example, the sorted order of function will be like:
> >
> > str_on_off()
>
> > str_plural()
>
> Leave this one to be last, it's special in comparison to the rest. See
> what the type of the parameter it has for the details.
Hi,

Noted. Thanks for clarifying it.

With Regards,
Sundar

> > str_read_write()
> >
> > > Oh, I looked in v6.11 code, in v6.12 there are a couple of more
> > > misplacements. Can you fix them all, please?
> > Sure, Will sort it and send as seperate patch.
>
> Thank you!