linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ioat: fail self-test if wait_for

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1420647753.28773.1.camel@djiang5-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:22:33 +0000
From:	"Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>
To:	"der.herr@...r.at" <der.herr@...r.at>
CC:	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	"dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"rashika.kheria@...il.com" <rashika.kheria@...il.com>,
	"prarit@...hat.com" <prarit@...hat.com>,
	"Koul, Vinod" <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	"josh@...htriplett.org" <josh@...htriplett.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ioat: fail self-test if wait_for_completion times out

On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 13:09 +0000, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2015, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On 01/06/2015 10:38 AM, Jiang, Dave wrote:
> > >>>> -	if (dma->device_tx_status(dma_chan, cookie, NULL) != DMA_COMPLETE) {
> > >>>> +	if (tmo == 0 || dma->device_tx_status(dma_chan, cookie, NULL)
> > >>>> +			!= DMA_COMPLETE) {
> > >>>
> > >>> Can you please do: 
> > >>> +	if (tmo == 0 ||
> > >>> +	    dma->device_tx_status(dma_chan, cookie, NULL) != DMA_COMPLETE) {
> > >>
> > >> Documentation/CodingStyle:Chapter 2
> > >>
> > >> "Statements longer than 80 columns will be broken into sensible chunks, unless
> > >> exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does not hide
> > >> information. Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and
> > >> are placed substantially to the right. The same applies to function headers..."
> > >>
> > >> am I misreading the CodingStyle here ?
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure what the issue is here.... What I proposed is still the
> > > same length as the original code. And what I suggested complies with the
> > > existing coding style that's already there.
> > 
> > Ugh ... I missed this obvious CodingStyle error.
> > 
> > What Dave is trying to say is that he (and I'm pretty sure everyone else
> > for that matter) disagree with you style change because you have not broken
> > the columns into "sensible chunks".
> > 
> > IOW ... this,
> > 
> > 	if (tmo == 0 ||
> > 	    dma->device_tx_status(dma_chan, cookie, NULL) != DMA_COMPLETE) {
> > 
> > is much easier to comprehend than this,
> > 
> > 	if (tmo == 0 || dma->device_tx_status(dma_chan, cookie, NULL)
> > 			!= DMA_COMPLETE) {
> >
> agreed - it was just not clear to me how strict things should
> be applied - e.g. the indentation with spaces - will cleanup and
> resend.

Thank you. In general as a rule of thumb, apply coding style that's
consistent with the code that's already there. That makes it easy for
readability because it does not deviate from the whole.