On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 03:20:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 02:25:56PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I was explicitly going for the opposite of that in order to make it > > harder for someone implementing a future extension to miss a place where > > an update is required, having the callers independently constructing the > > register values feels like it's asking for trouble. > I didn't say callers should *construct* the value independently, and I > showed how to centralize the construction in a __task_smcr() function. > I think callers should pass the entire value around rather than a > collection of discrete booleans: constructing a collection of discrete > booleans is functionally equivalent to construction the entire value, > and we can more easily manage the construction and passing of the entire > value. I got that, the problem I see is that it's equivalent to passing the entire value right up until the point where there's another field that needs managing and then every place that sets a new value needs to make sure it does the right thing. I think a __task_smcr() that constructs the value each time time as you suggest avoids that well enough.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
