On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 10:14 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:59:20 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > It's used in several places and more users may come. > > By using this helper they may create a slightly cleaner code. > > In general I'm not a big fan of arbitrary API shortcuts. I won't > object > if you think it's a good one to have, however I'm a bit concerned > about > the silent handling of the "error case", which could cause unexpected > default decisions as seen in patch 2/4 of this series.
Yes, we better to return -ERRNO in such case and allow callers to behave correspondingly. > The fact that > dmi_get_bios_year() returns 0 if there is no DMI BIOS date provided > should at least be documented, to limit the risk. > > I also wonder if dmi_get_date() itself couldn't be optimized a bit if > it turns out that most callers are only interested in the year. > Currently it will parse the whole string even if the caller isn't > interested in the month and day. > > The fact that dmi_get_date() returns true even if it couldn't parse > the > date string at all is also strange, although unrelated with your > current work. So, what I consider is to - move inline function to be regular one - optimize it with current dmi_get_date() - return error code when year is not parsable - consider current use cases where we do compare for less than a given year Does it sound a correct approach? > > checkpatch complains: > > WARNING: Missing a blank line after declarations > #61: FILE: include/linux/dmi.h:153: > + int year; > + dmi_get_date(DMI_BIOS_DATE, &year, NULL, NULL); > > And I would tend to agree. Just because it is an inline function in a > header file doesn't mean we don't stick to the usual coding style > policy. Ingo fixed that. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
