[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201008052308.56592.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 23:08:56 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if indentation
On Thursday 05 August 2010 22:51:12 Luca Tettamanti wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c b/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
> > index 685d659..695765c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
> > @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ bttv_i2c_wait_done(struct bttv *btv)
> > if (wait_event_interruptible_timeout(btv->i2c_queue,
> > btv->i2c_done, msecs_to_jiffies(85)) == -ERESTARTSYS)
> >
> > - rc = -EIO;
> > + rc = -EIO;
>
> I'd also remove the empty line before the indented statement, it's confusing...
>
The entire function looks a bit weird to me. If you look at the caller,
you'll notice that -EIO is treated in the same way as if the function had
returned zero, so the entire if() clause is pointless (the wait_event_*
probably is not).
Moreover, returning -ERESTARTSYS is probably the right action here,
why else would you make the wait interruptible?
Arnd
--
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