On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:33:36AM +0100, John Sheehan wrote: > Hi Charles, > > 2010/6/16 Charles Clément <caratorn@xxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 07:30:09PM +0100, John Sheehan wrote: > >> From: John Sheehan <john.d.sheehan@xxxxxxxxx> > > > >> @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ TODO: > >> outb(flags, PCI9111_IO_BASE+PCI9111_REGISTER_TRIGGER_MODE_CONTROL) > >> > >> #define pci9111_interrupt_and_fifo_get() \ > >> - ((inb(PCI9111_IO_BASE+PCI9111_REGISTER_AD_MODE_INTERRUPT_READBACK) >> 4) &0x03) > >> + ((inb(PCI9111_IO_BASE+PCI9111_REGISTER_AD_MODE_INTERRUPT_READBACK) >> 4)&0x03) > > > > Doesn't checkpatch.pl suggest to add a whitespace after the & in that case? > > no, surprisingly enough, it just requires the amount of whitespace at > either side of the & to be consistent Any specific reason to take this off the list? > > John > > It would seem more readable. > > > > -- > > Charles Clément > > > > -- Charles Clément _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
