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

[Vimal Singh]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 09:49 +0530, Vimal Singh wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1 at 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 at 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 at 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.

Well in that case I'll send this patch set by changing the patch order
sometime today.

-- 
Regards,
Vimal Singh