All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: "Raghavendra, Vignesh" <vigneshr@ti.com>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Factor out do_write_buffer_locked() to reduce stack frame
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 03:27:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aYKgdIOvJA3KHo4J@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d7e637be-0489-44f0-b5ab-86eb55484fde@ti.com>

On Sun, Feb 01, 2026 at 03:29:59PM +0530, Raghavendra, Vignesh wrote:
> On 1/29/2026 11:53 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:

...

> >>>  	XIP_INVAL_CACHED_RANGE(map, initial_adr, initial_len);
> >>>  	ENABLE_VPP(map);
> >>
> >> It seems more logical to leave these two in the original call.
> >>
> >> ...
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> >>> +	DISABLE_VPP(map);
> >>
> >> Otherwise this will seem dangling here.
> >>
> >>>  	put_chip(map, chip, cmd_adr);
> >>>  	mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex);
> >>>  	return ret;
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Another approach is to leave goto as is in the _locked() and move DISABLE_VPP()
> >> there.
> >>
> >> Tell me what do you prefer?
> > 
> > While I also find more logical to keep the ENABLE_VPP/DISABLE_VPP
> > together, I do not mind to see them in one side or the other. I would by
> > default let them in the main caller and suffi the inner function with
> > "_locked()" as you did, but I'm fine either ways.
> 
> Keeping ENABLE_VPP/DISABLE_VPP together along with _locked() suffix for
> inner function is cleaner to read.

I just sent a v2 where I kept them in the original call.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: "Raghavendra, Vignesh" <vigneshr@ti.com>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Factor out do_write_buffer_locked() to reduce stack frame
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 03:27:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aYKgdIOvJA3KHo4J@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d7e637be-0489-44f0-b5ab-86eb55484fde@ti.com>

On Sun, Feb 01, 2026 at 03:29:59PM +0530, Raghavendra, Vignesh wrote:
> On 1/29/2026 11:53 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:

...

> >>>  	XIP_INVAL_CACHED_RANGE(map, initial_adr, initial_len);
> >>>  	ENABLE_VPP(map);
> >>
> >> It seems more logical to leave these two in the original call.
> >>
> >> ...
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> >>> +	DISABLE_VPP(map);
> >>
> >> Otherwise this will seem dangling here.
> >>
> >>>  	put_chip(map, chip, cmd_adr);
> >>>  	mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex);
> >>>  	return ret;
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Another approach is to leave goto as is in the _locked() and move DISABLE_VPP()
> >> there.
> >>
> >> Tell me what do you prefer?
> > 
> > While I also find more logical to keep the ENABLE_VPP/DISABLE_VPP
> > together, I do not mind to see them in one side or the other. I would by
> > default let them in the main caller and suffi the inner function with
> > "_locked()" as you did, but I'm fine either ways.
> 
> Keeping ENABLE_VPP/DISABLE_VPP together along with _locked() suffix for
> inner function is cleaner to read.

I just sent a v2 where I kept them in the original call.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



  reply	other threads:[~2026-02-04  1:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-24  0:52 [PATCH v1 1/1] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Factor out do_write_buffer_locked() to reduce stack frame Andy Shevchenko
2026-01-24  0:52 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-01-24  1:04 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-01-24  1:04   ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-01-29 18:23   ` Miquel Raynal
2026-01-29 18:23     ` Miquel Raynal
2026-02-01  9:59     ` Raghavendra, Vignesh
2026-02-01  9:59       ` Raghavendra, Vignesh
2026-02-04  1:27       ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2026-02-04  1:27         ` Andy Shevchenko

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aYKgdIOvJA3KHo4J@smile.fi.intel.com \
    --to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.