[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160721072911.GF1664@katana>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:29:11 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] staging: ks7010: Delete unnecessary uses of the
variable "retval"
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 09:26:33AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> >
> > > >>> if (atomic_read(&priv->sleepstatus.status) == 0) {
> > > >>> rw_data = GCR_B_DOZE;
> > > >>> - retval =
> > > >>> - ks7010_sdio_write(priv, GCR_B, &rw_data, sizeof(rw_data));
> > > >>> - if (retval) {
> > > >>> + if (ks7010_sdio_write(priv,
> > > >>> + GCR_B,
> > > >>> + &rw_data,
> > > >>> + sizeof(rw_data))) {
> > > >>
> > > >> A multi-line function call in an if test does not look nice at all. The
> > > >> original code was an easy-to-read expectable pattern.
> > > >
> > > > I agree. I am not strict on the 80 char limit, especially in cases like
> > > > the above.
> > >
> > > Would you try an other source code formatting for the suggested change pattern?
> >
> > I don't understand the question?
>
> I think the original code was fine. x = blah(); if (x) ... is a perfectly
> familiar kernel coding pattern. There is no benefit in terms of
> performance or understandability in dropping the variable.
I certainly agree to that.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists