[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1340234315.29885.54.camel@joe2Laptop>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:18:35 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Devendra Naga <devendra.aaru@...il.com>,
"Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] staging/rtl8192u: fix coding style problems
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 16:08 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:35:42AM +0530, Devendra Naga wrote:
> > fixed some of the coding style problems reported by checkpatch
[]
> > @@ -66,11 +69,10 @@ short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev)
> > {
> > short bit;
> >
> > - bit=(read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT) );
> > + bit = (read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT));
> > udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
> >
> > - if(bit) return 1;
> > - return 0;
> > + return !!bit;
>
> Oh come on, really? !! is more "clear" here?
Depends on the reader. !! is pretty common.
> No, please be painfully obvious, that's the only way to write kernel
> code. Not like this.
I'd just make the return a bool instead.
Also, there are unnecessary parens that could
be removed to make the code clearer.
(1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT), (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) and
(1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) could be new #defines too.
--
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