[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfEREXJTr_QpADTsqBr10t16SaJqeM+tbxp6QZgc8Gfjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:41:03 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: benniciemanuel78@...il.com
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: hotplug: ibmphp: Fix 'line over 80 characters' Warning
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:25 PM Emanuel Bennici
<benniciemanuel78@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Fix checkpatch.pl 'line over 80 characters' Warning in ibmphp_ebda.c and
> ibmphp_hpc.c
I'm not sure it's needed.
And actually some of the changes are the regressions in order of
readability ratio.
> + debug("dev->device = %x, "
> + "dev->subsystem_device = %x\n",
Don't split string literals like this.
> - if ((pslot == NULL)
> - || ((pstatus == NULL) && (cmd != READ_ALLSTAT) && (cmd != READ_BUSSTATUS))) {
> + if ((pslot == NULL) || ((pstatus == NULL) && (cmd != READ_ALLSTAT) &&
> + (cmd != READ_BUSSTATUS))) {
No, no, this breaks readability a lot.
In the former it's clearly shown the logic between conditionals, while
in the latter it's a mess.
> + err("%s - Error ctrl_read failed\n",
> + __func__);
Really, no advantage on this line even for 80 characters.
> + err("%s - Exit Error:invalid bus, rc[%d]\n",
> + __func__, rc);
Same here.
> - debug("%s - ctlr id[%x] physical[%lx] logical[%lx] i2c[%x]\n", __func__,
> - ctlr_ptr->ctlr_id, (ulong) (ctlr_ptr->u.wpeg_ctlr.wpegbbar), (ulong) wpg_bbar,
> - ctlr_ptr->u.wpeg_ctlr.i2c_addr);
> + debug("%s - ctlr id[%x] physical[%lx] logical[%lx] i2c[%x]\n",
> + __func__, ctlr_ptr->ctlr_id,
> + (ulong) (ctlr_ptr->u.wpeg_ctlr.wpegbbar),
> + (ulong) wpg_bbar, ctlr_ptr->u.wpeg_ctlr.i2c_addr);
Here better to fix explicit casts (perhaps it means wrong specifiers
being used).
> + if ((poldslot->status & 0x20) &&
> + (SLOT_CONNECT(poldslot->status) == HPC_SLOT_CONNECTED)
> + && (SLOT_PRESENT(poldslot->status)))
Here you are not consistent in a way where to put logical operation.
> + memcpy((void *) &myslot, (void *) pslot,
> + sizeof(struct slot));
Why spaces after ) here?
> + debug("%s - call process_changeinstatus for"
> + "slot[%d]\n", __func__, i);
Do not split string literals like this.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists