On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:04:12AM +0530, devendra.aaru wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
*eye roll*
if (bit)
return 1;
return 0;
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
