Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:12:16 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PCAP RTC driver (for 2.6.32). |
| |
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:57:38 -0300 Daniel Ribeiro <drwyrm@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew, > > Em Sex, 2009-06-26 __s 13:23 -0700, Andrew Morton escreveu: > > This could be coded more simply: > > > > unsigned long rtc_events; > > > > if (irq == pcap_to_irq(pcap_rtc->pcap, PCAP_IRQ_1HZ)) > > rtc_events = RTC_IRQF | RTC_UF; > > else if (irq == pcap_to_irq(pcap_rtc->pcap, PCAP_IRQ_TODA)) > > rtc_events = RTC_IRQF | RTC_AF; > > This would make gcc complain about rtc_events being used uninitialized.
So initialise it ;)
It's the "|=" which is strange and a bit misleading - it's a coding trick which doesn't reflect what is happening at a functional level.
But it's a minor point.
> > SEC_PER_DAY is defined in include/linux/mfd/ezx-pcap.h. It should not > > be, because it is not specific to that driver and can be used elsewhere > > in the kernel. > > > > I'd suggest that we > > > > - define SECS_PER_DAY in include/linux/time.h > > > > - remove the private definitions of SECS_PER_DAY from > > arch/m68k/mac/misc, arch/parisc/include/asm/rtc.h, > > arch/ia64/hp/sim/boot/fw-emu.c, fs/udf/udftime.c, fs/fat/misc.c and > > wherever else it appears, make those files use the common definition > > > > - migrate rtc-pcap.c from SEC_PER_DAY over to the common SECS_PER_DAY. > > > > - Then do it all again for SECS_PER_MIN and SECS_PER_HOUR. > > > > > > What a mess. > > I can't work on this right now, but i will be happy to reserve some > hours for this next month if nobody else does it before.
Well, whatever. Lots of people could pick up this projectlet.
> > "tmp" is a poor identifier. We had an opportunity here to use an > > identifier which would communicate useful information to the reader. > > But we blew it and used the information-free "tmp" instead. > > > > Something like > > > > u32 time_of_day; /* In seconds since midnight */ > > > > would be nice. If that is indeed what the variable contains. How > > would I know? It's called 'tmp" and is undescribed! > > Hum.. I used tmp because the variable is reused and it may be "days > since 1/1/1970" or "seconds since today's 00:00:00".
That's even worse!
> I will add some comments to make this clear.
It'd be clearest to create two appropriately-named variables. This shouldn't affect emitted code unless gcc is busted.
> I see that you have already added it to the -mm tree.
Yes, I often do that. To get a bit of early testing and so the whole thing doesn't get lost. Also so that I remember that I've reviewed it once.
> Do you prefer an > incremental patch to address your comments or should I send a patch to > replace the current version?
A replacement is OK at this early stage. I will turn that into an incremental here so that I can see what you did.
| |