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

[Wen Gu]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Wen Gu <guwen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    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)