Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:04:12 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] staging/rtl8192u: fix coding style problems | From | "devendra.aaru" <> |
| |
Hi Joe,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 16:08 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:35:42AM +0530, Devendra Naga wrote: >> > fixed some of the coding style problems reported by checkpatch > [] >> > @@ -66,11 +69,10 @@ short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev) >> > { >> > short bit; >> > >> > - bit=(read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT) ); >> > + bit = (read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT)); >> > udelay(EPROM_DELAY); >> > >> > - if(bit) return 1; >> > - return 0; >> > + return !!bit; >> >> Oh come on, really? !! is more "clear" here? > > Depends on the reader. !! is pretty common. > >> No, please be painfully obvious, that's the only way to write kernel >> code. Not like this. > > I'd just make the return a bool instead. > taking another variable and assign it like bool ret = !!bit, and returning ret?, i think this doesn't look better. > Also, there are unnecessary parens that could > be removed to make the code clearer. > > (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT), (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) and > (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) could be new #defines too. > > Will do.
thanks joe.
Devendra. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |