Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:45:49 -0800 | | From | Eric Gaumer <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] orinoco rfmon |
| |
Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Saturday 26 February 2005 20:10, Eric Gaumer wrote: > > >>If the code looks problematic could someone point out possible >>deficiencies so we can work toward a satisfactory resolution? I didn't >>write the code but I'm willing do what I have to in order to get this >>(wireless scanning) into the official tree. > > > Uhhh... Started to comment line-by-line but then realized it would take too > much time. > > * Read Documentaion/CodingStyle. > * Indent code with tabs where it is already indented with tabs. > * Brackets around a single number in #define's are useless. > * Use u8, u16, u32 (not uint*_t) where the code already uses them. > * Comments are supposed to be anonymous. > * Use appropriate KERN_* constant in printk()'s. > * Don't pack simple types (uint32_t, ...) > * Common convention is to return 0 on success, negative number on error. > Positive return values don't fit well into this scheme. If possible > follow it. > > Oh, and the type p80211item_uint32_t when in fact it is a 12-bytes long > structure ... > > Alexey
What is the difference between u* and uint*_t ? Both are derived from the same basic data type.
typedef unsigned char __u8; typedef __u8 uint8_t;
And...
typedef unsigned char u8;
-- "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." - Albert Einstein [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |