[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200904222143.47220.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:43:46 +0200
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] IDE fixes
On Wednesday 22 April 2009 21:06:47 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 20:48 +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-cd.c b/drivers/ide/ide-cd.c
> > index 3aec19d..3d4e099 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-cd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-cd.c
> > @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ static ide_startstop_t cdrom_newpc_intr(ide_drive_t *drive)
> > struct request *rq = hwif->rq;
> > ide_expiry_t *expiry = NULL;
> > int dma_error = 0, dma, thislen, uptodate = 0;
> > - int write = (rq_data_dir(rq) == WRITE) ? 1 : 0, rc, nsectors;
> > + int write = (rq_data_dir(rq) == WRITE) ? 1 : 0, rc = 0, nsectors;
> > int sense = blk_sense_request(rq);
> > unsigned int timeout;
> > u16 len;
>
> I think ide is the only subsystem to use the
> initialization style of "?:," with additional
> declarations.
Well, nothing wrong with it per se.
> Would it be better to use a more standard style?
>
> maybe:
> int dma_error = 0, dma, thislen, uptodate = 0, rc = 0, nsectors;
> int write = ((rq_data_dir(rq) == WRITE) ? 1 : 0;
Personally I would prefer:
int write = !!(rq_data_dir(rq) == WRITE);
However the old code is also fine with me.
> > diff --git a/drivers/ide/palm_bk3710.c b/drivers/ide/palm_bk3710.c
> > index c7acca0..d1513b4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ide/palm_bk3710.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ide/palm_bk3710.c
> []
> > @@ -75,13 +67,19 @@ struct palm_bk3710_udmatiming {
> >
> > static unsigned ideclk_period; /* in nanoseconds */
> >
> > +struct palm_bk3710_udmatiming {
> > + unsigned int rptime; /* tRP -- Ready to pause time (nsec) */
> > + unsigned int cycletime; /* tCYCTYP2/2 -- avg Cycle Time (nsec) */
> > + /* tENV is always a minimum of 20 nsec */
> > +};
> > +
> > static const struct palm_bk3710_udmatiming palm_bk3710_udmatimings[6] = {
> > - {160, 240}, /* UDMA Mode 0 */
> > - {125, 160}, /* UDMA Mode 1 */
> > - {100, 120}, /* UDMA Mode 2 */
> > - {100, 90}, /* UDMA Mode 3 */
> > - {100, 60}, /* UDMA Mode 4 */
> > - {85, 40}, /* UDMA Mode 5 */
> > + {160, 240 / 2,}, /* UDMA Mode 0 */
> > + {125, 160 / 2,}, /* UDMA Mode 1 */
> > + {100, 120 / 2,}, /* UDMA Mode 2 */
> > + {100, 90 / 2,}, /* UDMA Mode 3 */
> > + {100, 60 / 2,}, /* UDMA Mode 4 */
> > + {85, 40 / 2,}, /* UDMA Mode 5 */
> > };
> >
> > static void palm_bk3710_setudmamode(void __iomem *base, unsigned int dev,
>
> Odd looking commas.
>
> Maybe:
>
> {.rptime = 160, .cycletime = 240 / 2 }, /* UDMA Mode 0 */
> etc.
I really don't consider this an improvement from readability perspective
and I also don't like the added code duplication...
IMO we should just remove extra commas and add some whitespaces.
I have also more general (process oriented) comment:
All patches have been posted to linux-kernel or linux-ide for review before
and it is _much_ more efficient to raise issues (including CodingStyle ones)
during "review phase" instead of during "push to Linus" phase.
Thanks,
Bart
--
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