Re: [PATCH v7 2/9] iio: ssp_sensors: factor out pending list add/remove helper(s)

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 05:38:59PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Sun, 03 May 2026 16:53:27 +0530
> Sanjay Chitroda <sanjayembeddedse@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 26 April 2026 7:38:30 pm IST, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 14:47:03 +0530
> > >Sanjay Chitroda <sanjayembeddedse@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> > >> +	if (msg->length == 0)
> > >> +		return;  
> > >
> > >I know Andy suggested your bring these into the helpers, but to me
> > >it's obscuring flow as it looks at the caller like it was added
> > >to the pending list when it wasn't..  And we end up with multiple
> > >checks on msg_length where we had one before.
> > >
> > >One option would be to have it return a bool to indicate whether
> > >it was added to the pending list or not.
> > >
> > >Andy, would that work for you?

I don't remember if I answered anything to this, but returning bool is fine...

...

> > If we convert this change to sub-function then suggested use_irq would be
> > shifted to sub-function; then how would you suggest to handle that bool ?
> > - keep msg->length as it is
> > - in sub function __ssp_do_transfer(data, msg), should we pass additional
> > parameter to bool for further execution?
> Pass in any additional parameters you need. If it becomes too long then 
> this was a bad idea and you should ignore me ;)

...however, the coding style (or some documentation) suggests against bool
parameters to the functions.

> > Or any better alternative to handle both ?
> > 
> > >Then we only have a simple check on return value from that to decide
> > >to increment the counter and exit on error.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko