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.
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.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
