From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16332C433E0 for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 07:08:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B532364ECE for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 07:08:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229524AbhBSHIl (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Feb 2021 02:08:41 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:41920 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229498AbhBSHIk (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Feb 2021 02:08:40 -0500 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC9DF64EC7; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 07:07:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1613718479; bh=0IwgKLcCN57+liMx+xqKFJRTOI0mvqEbd1JQc1Ng4Aw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=t7FLszEWf28OFG18AnvJ567RCAUvF5SnZoFhu2troOhIOEOa4rKOaJ3Ei622scVuH hW/dyQjyhpuHF5xu+AwqRNPpM4IEONKKDf8EQs1B4889LYUj3TsawARZ3LVUC3LKlG +rFUQrnLcEz58J/O5Qcown12I7z2EIPXyVEmETU1APwd+VFxhfOjEjtobbBCo2Z0ez cShQGqBAmfFNLs/PlMw04AciNRIMuvzm+3WZDtlurlZDMxvsZGLp+CkDGipQKosxDW GfQw42j+5Wh8BDiU0Qqwv2jlalrFCWo1RGCECCWIsfTfc6kQVk5vEmkXhnPjvOr8sO 6SHeZlZNCWCiA== Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:07:44 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: David Laight , Lino Sanfilippo , "peterhuewe@gmx.de" , "stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com" , "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Lino Sanfilippo Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tpm: fix reference counting for struct tpm_chip Message-ID: References: <1613435460-4377-1-git-send-email-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de> <1613435460-4377-2-git-send-email-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de> <20210216125342.GU4718@ziepe.ca> <74bbc76260594a8a8f7993ab66cca104@AcuMS.aculab.com> <20210218012702.GX4718@ziepe.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210218012702.GX4718@ziepe.ca> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 09:27:02PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:14:11AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:31:26PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > + get_device(&chip->dev); > > > > > > + chip->devs.release = tpm_devs_release; > > > > > > + chip->devs.devt = > > > > > > + MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES); > > > > > > > > Isn't this less than 100 chars? > > > > > > Still best kept under 80 if 'reasonable'? > > > > > > Really it is just split in the wrong place: > > > chip->devs.devt = MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), > > > chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES); > > > > > > Well it looks crap IMHO. Would be more reasonable to have it in a single > > like. And it is legit too, since it is accepted by checkpatch. > > > > You might break the lines within 80 chars if it is somehow "logically" > > consistent. > > FWIW, I've become kind of tired of the style wishywashyness I've > mostly been happy to accept anything that clang-format spits out for > ordinary C constructs. A. I would not mind if it was already merged. Since it isn't, I don't see the point not fixing it. > It is good enough and universally usable. If devs don't have it linked > to their editor to format single expression or format selected blocks, > they are missing out :) > > The community consensus on style is quite unclear. Is 1 or 2 above the > majority preference? Does this case fall under the new "use more than > 80 cols if it improves readability?" I have no idea. B. I need to maintain this, once it's merged. C. A smaller diff for a critical bug fix. I actually allow style compromises for fixes to be backported *when* it makes the overall diff smaller. D. Has more odds to make future changes smaller as the whole thing is in a single code line. > Frankly, for most people writing driver code, if they consistently use > clang-format their work will be alot better than if they try to do it > by hand. It takes a lot of experiance to reliably eyeball something > close to the kernel style.. For me it gives a framework to review patches in multiple subsystems. If I have to constantly think whether to allow this and that shift from the kernel coding style, it makes the whole process for me more fuzzy and chaotic. As I said (A), it would not be end of the world if this had been merged already. I also want to state that I do sometimes make mistakes when reviewing code, and am happy to take critique from that :-) > Jason /Jarkko