[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080114131347.6ddd036a@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:13:47 +0100
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, a.zummo@...ertech.it,
peterz@...radead.org, cbou@...l.ru, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, krh@...hat.com,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, dwmw2@...radead.org,
davem@...emloft.net, jarkao2@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] driver-core : add class iteration api
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:47:54 +0800,
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> wrote:
Minor style suggestion (same for class_find_child):
> +struct device *class_find_device(struct class *class, void *data,
> + int (*match)(struct device *, void *))
> +{
> + struct device *dev;
> + int error = 1;
How about using inverse logic here (e.g., start with int found = 0)...
> +
> + if (!class)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + down(&class->sem);
> + list_for_each_entry(dev, &class->devices, node) {
> + dev = get_device(dev);
> + if (dev) {
> + if (match(dev, data)) {
> + error = 0;
...and set found = 1 here...
> + break;
> + } else
> + put_device(dev);
> + } else
> + break;
> + }
> + up(&class->sem);
> +
> + if (error)
> + return NULL;
> + return dev;
...and do
return found ? dev : NULL;
in the end?
Especially since not finding the device is not really an error.
> +}
Otherwise this looks fine to me.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists