[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190617084033.GG28859@kadam>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:40:34 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Melissa Wen <melissa.srw@...il.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Stefan Popa <stefan.popa@...log.com>,
Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-usp@...glegroups.com,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: iio: ad7150: use ternary operating to ensure
0/1 value
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 11:15:16AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:50:59 -0300
> Melissa Wen <melissa.srw@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Remove idiom and use ternary operator for consistently trigger 0/1 value
> > on variable declaration.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Melissa Wen <melissa.srw@...il.com>
> Hi Melissa,
>
> In general I would consider this unnecessary churn as, whilst
> it's no longer a favoured idiom, it is extremely common in the
> kernel.
It's still my favourite... Why wouldn't people like it? It feels like
last week I just saw someone send a bunch of:
- foo = (bar == baz) ? 1 : 0;
+ foo = (bar == baz);
patches and I thought it was an improvement at the time...
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists