On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:12:39PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote: > In eeepc_rfkill_exit, we implement the same code four times. Pull out a > function that cleans up an rfkill object to get rid of the duplication. > > Signed-off-by: Frans Klaver <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c | 34 ++++++++++++++-------------------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c > b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c > index e92ea41..73e8d39 100644 > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c > @@ -823,35 +823,29 @@ static char EEEPC_RFKILL_NODE_1[] = "\\_SB.PCI0.P0P5"; > static char EEEPC_RFKILL_NODE_2[] = "\\_SB.PCI0.P0P6"; > static char EEEPC_RFKILL_NODE_3[] = "\\_SB.PCI0.P0P7"; > > +static inline void eeepc_destroy_rfkill(struct rfkill **rfkill) > +{ > + if (!*rfkill) > + return; > + rfkill_unregister(*rfkill); > + rfkill_destroy(*rfkill); > + *rfkill = NULL; > +}
In this case the savings is 6 lines at the cost of some legibility as double pointers are arguably harder to read, and definitely easier to screw up ;-) I appreciate the goal, but I'm not convinced it is worth it. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
