[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120925063744.GP4587@mwanda>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:37:44 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Gorskin Ilya <revent82@...il.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, klmckinney1@...il.com,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Staging:bcm: fix coding style error in InterfaceIsr.c
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:04:28AM +0600, Gorskin Ilya wrote:
> - if(((Adapter->bPreparingForLowPowerMode == TRUE) && (Adapter->bDoSuspend == TRUE)) ||
> - psIntfAdapter->bSuspended ||
> - psIntfAdapter->bPreparingForBusSuspend)
> - {
> - BCM_DEBUG_PRINT(Adapter,DBG_TYPE_OTHERS, INTF_INIT, DBG_LVL_ALL,"Interrupt call back is called while suspending the device");
> + if (((Adapter->bPreparingForLowPowerMode == TRUE) &&
> + (Adapter->bDoSuspend == TRUE)) ||
> + psIntfAdapter->bSuspended ||
> + psIntfAdapter->bPreparingForBusSuspend) {
> + BCM_DEBUG_PRINT(Adapter, DBG_TYPE_OTHERS, INTF_INIT,
> + DBG_LVL_ALL,
> + "Interrupt call back is called
> + while suspending the device");
> return ;
Hi,
Thanks for doing this, these changes are welcome. However, they
should be done slightly differently.
Take one type of checkpatch warning at a time and fix that one over
the file, then do a separate patch for the next type of warning.
[patch 1/2] Staging: bcm: move curly braces in InterfaceIsr.c
[patch 2/2] Staging: bcm: clean up conditions in InterfaceIsr.c
Something like that.
Also the way you've indented the condition is not right. The
conditions which are && together should line up like this:
if (((Adapter->bPreparingForLowPowerMode == TRUE) &&
(Adapter->bDoSuspend == TRUE)) ||
psIntfAdapter->bSuspended ||
psIntfAdapter->bPreparingForBusSuspend) {
Also the condition has too many parenthesis. Everyone knows how the
precedence works in:
if (foo == 3 || bar == 4) {
We don't need to specify:
if ((foo == 3) || (bar == 4)) {
Putting extra parenthesis make the code harder to read and has lead
to == vs = bugs which would have been caught by gcc:
warning: suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value [-Wparentheses]
Also can we just leave off the "== TRUE", or is this a case where it
can "== TRUE", "== FALSE", and "== FILENOTFOUND"?
Finally, this is not quoted correctly.
> + "Interrupt call back is called
> + while suspending the device");
Don't break those string literals up across multiple lines, but if
you do then you need to add quotes.
"Interrupt call back is called"
^
"while suspending the device");
^
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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