Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/9] net/smc: introduce sub-functions for smc_clc_send_confirm_accept()

[Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 2023/12/11 17:47, Alexandra Winter wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09.12.23 03:50, Wen Gu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/12/8 15:40, Wen Gu wrote:
>>
>>> There is a large if-else block in smc_clc_send_confirm_accept() and it
>>> is better to split it into two sub-functions.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Alexandra Winter <wintera@linux.ibm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com>
>>> ---
>>>    net/smc/smc_clc.c | 196 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>>    1 file changed, 114 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/smc/smc_clc.c b/net/smc/smc_clc.c
>>> index 0fcb035..52b4ea9 100644
>>> --- a/net/smc/smc_clc.c
>>> +++ b/net/smc/smc_clc.c
>>> @@ -998,6 +998,111 @@ int smc_clc_send_proposal(struct smc_sock *smc, struct smc_init_info *ini)
>>>        return reason_code;
>>>    }
>>>    +static void smcd_clc_prep_confirm_accept(struct smc_connection *conn,
>>> +                struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 *clc_v2,
>>
>> checkpatch will complain 'Alignment should match open parenthesis' here.
>> But in order to make the length less than 80 columns, there seems to be
>> no other good way.
>>
>>> +                int first_contact, u8 version,
>>> +                u8 *eid, struct smc_init_info *ini,
>>> +                int *fce_len,
>>> +                struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x *fce_v2x,
>>> +                struct smc_clc_msg_trail *trl)
>>> +{
>> <...>
>>
>>> +
>>> +static void smcr_clc_prep_confirm_accept(struct smc_connection *conn,
>>> +                struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 *clc_v2,
>>
>> And here.
>>
>>> +                int first_contact, u8 version,
>>> +                u8 *eid, struct smc_init_info *ini,
>>> +                int *fce_len,
>>> +                struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x *fce_v2x,
>>> +                struct smc_clc_fce_gid_ext *gle,
>>> +                struct smc_clc_msg_trail *trl)
>>> +{
>> <...>
>>
> 
> 
> You could shorten the names of the functions

Thank you. I thought about that too, but I think shortening the name may
have an impact on the understanding.



I think the following may be another way out and checkpatch is happy:

+static void
+smcd_clc_prep_confirm_accept(struct smc_connection *conn,
+                             struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 *clc_v2,
+                             int first_contact, u8 version,
+                             u8 *eid, struct smc_init_info *ini,
+                             int *fce_len,
+                             struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x *fce_v2x,
+                             struct smc_clc_msg_trail *trl)

and

+static void
+smcr_clc_prep_confirm_accept(struct smc_connection *conn,
+                             struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 *clc_v2,
+                             int first_contact, u8 version,
+                             u8 *eid, struct smc_init_info *ini,
+                             int *fce_len,
+                             struct smc_clc_first_contact_ext_v2x *fce_v2x,
+                             struct smc_clc_fce_gid_ext *gle,
+                             struct smc_clc_msg_trail *trl)