Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Creating helper func for block alignment verfication

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 09:49 +0530, Vimal Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 18:59 +0530, Vimal Singh wrote:
> >> From 310f7faa8f319bd9384512f7d5a7f13dcfbeebc8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Vimal Singh <vimalsingh@ti.com>
> >> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:11:47 +0530
> >> Subject: [PATCH] Creating helper func for block alignment verfication
> >>
> >> These checks are fairly common in 'nand_erase_nand', 'nand_lock'
> >> and 'nand_unlock' functions.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vimal Singh <vimalsingh@ti.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c |   97 +++++++++++++++---------------------------
> >>  1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> >> index 4e27426..c80cec5 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> >> @@ -108,6 +108,37 @@ static int nand_do_write_oob(struct
> >>   */
> >>  DEFINE_LED_TRIGGER(nand_led_trigger);
> >>
> >> +static int block_alignment_verification(struct mtd_info *mtd,
> >> +                                     loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
> >> +{
> >
> > This function checks not only alignment, so the name is bad. I suggest
> > check_offs_len() - it at least does not lie about what it does :-)
> 
> OK, no problem.
> 
> >
> >> +     struct nand_chip *chip = mtd->priv;
> >> +
> >> +     DEBUG(MTD_DEBUG_LEVEL3, "%s: start = 0x%012llx, len = %llu\n",
> >> +                     __func__, (unsigned long long)ofs, len);
> >
> > No, you should keep the DEBUG part in the caller. Because of __func__.
> 
> Agree.
> 
> >
> > Also please, introduce the helper in the _first_ patch, and then use it
> > in your functions in the second patch. This is more logical.
> 
> Before 1st patch this helper will be called by just one function
> "nand_erase_nand". And then in that creating helper function does not
> makes sense to me.

It does. It will be a preparation to the next patch.

> To me doing this in 2nd patch looks more logical.
> 
> Either way we will achieve same goal only number of lines in patches will defer.
> So, if you still insist I can make it 1st patch.

OK, it is not a big deal.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)