From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tbaicar@codeaurora.org (Baicar, Tyler) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:33:13 -0600 Subject: [PATCH V14 02/10] ras: acpi/apei: cper: generic error data entry v3 per ACPI 6.1 In-Reply-To: <20170413204744.iizyyi32v4hjt3fc@pd.tnic> References: <1490729440-32591-1-git-send-email-tbaicar@codeaurora.org> <1490729440-32591-3-git-send-email-tbaicar@codeaurora.org> <20170412133447.n2yft7v266v6k6gh@pd.tnic> <8a31ef45-68f6-d444-f174-4a485cccd696@codeaurora.org> <20170413204744.iizyyi32v4hjt3fc@pd.tnic> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 4/13/2017 2:47 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 02:30:21PM -0600, Baicar, Tyler wrote: >> I do not agree with this. The struct being passed to this function is >> already named acpi_hest_generic_data in the existing code and all over this >> code is named gdata not just d. > And I'm saying they're too long - the preexisting ones and the ones > you're adding - and impair readability. This whole driver is one > unreadable ugly pile and if I were the maintainer I would never allowed > it in its current form. > > But I don't think it really has a maintainer - poor Rafael has to deal > with it because it is under drivers/acpi/ and that whole RAS firmware > crap got thrown over the wall at some point and now we're stuck with it. > > So this is just my opinion since he asked me to take a look. Okay, that makes sense. I'd prefer to avoid completely re-writing the existing code in this patch set :) Thanks, Tyler -- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.