lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8187se: r8180_core.c: Fix coding style issue
    Thanks, you help me alot

    If you don't mind me asking a few more question.

    Would fixing things like this

    - if(x==y)
    + if(x == y)

    be worthless?
    Changing c++ style comment to c style?
    And I should not wory about line being longer the 80 charactor, unless they are
    just extremely long?

    I'm just over half way through my CS degree, so I'm a complete noob. I'm still learning what is
    not worth spending time on and what is.

    On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:12:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
    > On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 21:49 -0400, Andrew Miller wrote:
    > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:33:56PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
    > > > On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 20:58 -0400, Andrew Miller wrote:
    > > > > Fix long line coding style issue
    > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Miller <amiller@amilx.com>
    > > > Please strive for clarity instead of just fixing
    > > > random 80 char warnings.
    > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8187se/r8180_core.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8187se/r8180_core.c
    > > > []
    > > > > @@ -1607,17 +1609,20 @@ void rtl8180_rx(struct net_device *dev)
    > > > > /* printk("==========================>rx : RXAGC is %d,signalstrength is %d\n",RXAGC,stats.signalstrength); */
    > > > > stats.rssi = priv->wstats.qual.qual = priv->SignalQuality;
    > > > > stats.noise = priv->wstats.qual.noise = 100 - priv->wstats.qual.qual;
    > > > > - bHwError = (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x00000fff)) == 4080) | (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x04000000)) != 0)
    > > > > - | (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x08000000)) != 0) | (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x10000000)) != 0) | (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x20000000)) != 0);
    > > > > + bHwError = (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x00000fff)) == 4080) |
    > > > > + (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x04000000)) != 0) |
    > > > > + (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x08000000)) != 0) |
    > > > > + (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x10000000)) != 0) |
    > > > > + (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x20000000)) != 0);
    > > > Likely these | uses should be ||
    > > I'm not really sure what you mean, do you mean I should change '|' to '||"?
    > > like this
    > > bHwError = (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x00000fff)) == 4080) ||
    > > (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x04000000)) != 0) ||
    > > (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x08000000)) != 0) ||
    > > (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x10000000)) != 0) ||
    > > (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x20000000)) != 0);
    >
    > Yes.
    >
    > If this bit of code is especially performance sensitive,
    > there are times when using | instead of || can be an
    > overall speed improvement. I haven't looked at this
    > code before so I don't know what's appropriate here but
    > using || might be more sensible though possibly slower.
    >
    > > > It might be better to reshuffle the test order too:
    > > > if (IEEE80211_FTYPE_CTL != type &&
    > > > !bHwError && bCRC && !bICV &&
    > > > eqMacAddr(priv->ieee80211->current_network.bssid,
    > > > fc & IEEE80211_FCTL_TODS ? hdr->addr1 :
    > > > fc & IEEE80211_FCTL_FROMDS ? hdr->addr2 :
    > > > hdr->addr3))
    > > > etc...
    > > That does look much cleaner, It never occurred to me that I can do that.
    >
    > Feel empowered to make the code better. Do what's right.
    > Don't just correct mindless checkpatch error messages.
    >
    > cheers, Joe


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-14 03:37    [W:0.029 / U:0.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site