Add str_locked_unlocked()/str_unlocked_locked() helper to return
"locked" or "unlocked" string literal

Suggested-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: R Sundar <prosunofficial@gmail.com>
---

https://lore.kernel.org/all/ca4f7990-16c4-42ef-b0ae-12e64a100f5e@intel.com/

https://lore.kernel.org/all/498a3d58-55e0-4349-bd92-8ce16c6016@inria.fr/

There are about 9 occurence for locked and unlocked string combination.

 include/linux/string_choices.h | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/string_choices.h b/include/linux/string_choices.h
index 120ca0f28e95..c3ad47e1051b 100644
--- a/include/linux/string_choices.h
+++ b/include/linux/string_choices.h
@@ -82,4 +82,10 @@ static inline const char *str_plural(size_t num)
 	return num == 1 ? "" : "s";
 }
 
+static inline const char *str_locked_unlocked(bool v)
+{
+	return v ? "locked" : "unlocked";
+}
+#define str_unlocked_locked(v)		str_locked_unlocked(!(v))
+
 #endif
-- 
2.34.1

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 4:47 PM R Sundar <prosunofficial@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Add str_locked_unlocked()/str_unlocked_locked() helper to return
> "locked" or "unlocked" string literal

Missing period.

...

> --- a/include/linux/string_choices.h
> +++ b/include/linux/string_choices.h
> @@ -82,4 +82,10 @@ static inline const char *str_plural(size_t num)
>         return num == 1 ? "" : "s";
>  }
>
> +static inline const char *str_locked_unlocked(bool v)
> +{
> +       return v ? "locked" : "unlocked";
> +}
> +#define str_unlocked_locked(v)         str_locked_unlocked(!(v))

The rest is sorted (okay, read_write() seems to be misplaced, fix that
in a separate change if you wish), please keep it that way (I believe
it should go before on_off).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 9:44 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 4:47 PM R Sundar <prosunofficial@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> > --- a/include/linux/string_choices.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/string_choices.h
> > @@ -82,4 +82,10 @@ static inline const char *str_plural(size_t num)
> >         return num == 1 ? "" : "s";
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline const char *str_locked_unlocked(bool v)
> > +{
> > +       return v ? "locked" : "unlocked";
> > +}
> > +#define str_unlocked_locked(v)         str_locked_unlocked(!(v))
>
> The rest is sorted (okay, read_write() seems to be misplaced, fix that
> in a separate change if you wish), please keep it that way (I believe
> it should go before on_off).

Oh, I looked in v6.11 code, in v6.12 there are a couple of more
misplacements. Can you fix them all, please?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On 16/11/24 01:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 9:44 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 4:47 PM R Sundar <prosunofficial@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> --- a/include/linux/string_choices.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/string_choices.h
>>> @@ -82,4 +82,10 @@ static inline const char *str_plural(size_t num)
>>>          return num == 1 ? "" : "s";
>>>   }
>>>
>>> +static inline const char *str_locked_unlocked(bool v)
>>> +{
>>> +       return v ? "locked" : "unlocked";
>>> +}
>>> +#define str_unlocked_locked(v)         str_locked_unlocked(!(v))
>>
>> The rest is sorted (okay, read_write() seems to be misplaced, fix that
>> in a separate change if you wish), please keep it that way (I believe
>> it should go before on_off).
> 
Hi,

Thanks for the Review and Comments provided.

Please correct me, If I am wrong.

The function name should be in sorted order means,  str_read_write() 
will go after str_on_off().

For example, the sorted order of function will be like:

str_on_off()
str_plural()
str_read_write()

> Oh, I looked in v6.11 code, in v6.12 there are a couple of more
> misplacements. Can you fix them all, please?
> 
Sure, Will sort it and send as seperate patch.

Thanks,
Sundar

On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 5:48 AM R Sundar <prosunofficial@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/11/24 01:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 9:44 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 4:47 PM R Sundar <prosunofficial@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> >>> +static inline const char *str_locked_unlocked(bool v)
> >>> +{
> >>> +       return v ? "locked" : "unlocked";
> >>> +}
> >>> +#define str_unlocked_locked(v)         str_locked_unlocked(!(v))
> >>
> >> The rest is sorted (okay, read_write() seems to be misplaced, fix that
> >> in a separate change if you wish), please keep it that way (I believe
> >> it should go before on_off).
>
> Thanks for the Review and Comments provided.
>
> Please correct me, If I am wrong.
>
> The function name should be in sorted order means,  str_read_write()
> will go after str_on_off().
>
> For example, the sorted order of function will be like:
>
> str_on_off()

> str_plural()

Leave this one to be last, it's special in comparison to the rest. See
what the type of the parameter it has for the details.

> str_read_write()
>
> > Oh, I looked in v6.11 code, in v6.12 there are a couple of more
> > misplacements. Can you fix them all, please?
> >
> Sure, Will sort it and send as seperate patch.

Thank you!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

On 18/11/24 01:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 5:48 AM R Sundar <prosunofficial@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16/11/24 01:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 9:44 PM Andy Shevchenko
>>> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 4:47 PM R Sundar <prosunofficial@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>>> +static inline const char *str_locked_unlocked(bool v)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       return v ? "locked" : "unlocked";
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#define str_unlocked_locked(v)         str_locked_unlocked(!(v))
>>>>
>>>> The rest is sorted (okay, read_write() seems to be misplaced, fix that
>>>> in a separate change if you wish), please keep it that way (I believe
>>>> it should go before on_off).
>>
>> Thanks for the Review and Comments provided.
>>
>> Please correct me, If I am wrong.
>>
>> The function name should be in sorted order means,  str_read_write()
>> will go after str_on_off().
>>
>> For example, the sorted order of function will be like:
>>
>> str_on_off()
> 
>> str_plural()
> 
> Leave this one to be last, it's special in comparison to the rest. See
> what the type of the parameter it has for the details.
> 
Hi,

Noted. Thanks for clarifying it.

With Regards,
Sundar

>> str_read_write()
>>
>>> Oh, I looked in v6.11 code, in v6.12 there are a couple of more
>>> misplacements. Can you fix them all, please?
>>>
>> Sure, Will sort it and send as seperate patch.
> 
> Thank you!
>