Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:43:19 +0200 | From | Oliver Schinagl <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] Initial support for Allwinner's Security ID fuses |
| |
On 06/06/13 21:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Thank you andy for your review, I do have a few questions/comments if you don't mind. > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Oliver Schinagl <oliver+list@schinagl.nl> wrote: >> From: Oliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> <snip> >> + if (likely((SID_SIZE))) { > > Extra braces. > Use antipattern here.
While I accidentally dropped the pointer here, sorry for the confusion, what is antipattern? I have asked around and nobody really knew.
Wikipedia mentions it as a software development thing, but you make it sound like it is some sort of tool?
<snip> >> + if (unlikely(!pdev->dev.of_node)) { >> + dev_err(dev, "No devicetree data available\n"); >> + ret = -EFAULT; >> + goto exit; > > Plain return here and in entire function where it applies. Why? I know there's conflicting preferences here. The general consensus seems, don't return mid function if you don't absolutely have to. Yet, you make it sound, just return wherever. I take it that really is just a preference? I think i see both constructs throughout the kernel. So one review prefers the one method, the next the other? <snip> >> + >> + ret = device_create_bin_file(dev, &sid_bin_attr); >> + if (unlikely(ret)) { > > Any benifit of (un)likely in probe()? Does it hurt however in any way though? It's just a compiler optimization isn't it.
<snip> > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > Thank you for your time, it is much appreciated :)
Oliver
| |