On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 05:01:55AM +0900, YAMANE Toshiaki wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Why can't we test whether i == (RxCount - 3) earlier and handle
> > the errors there? That way we wouldn't need to pass the limit
> > variable.
> >
> > In fact, this whole function is sort of nasty. We start by doing
> > a switch (data[i + 2]) { then we combine the 0x00 and 0x01 and call
> > this function which separates them out and sets a function pointer
> > and then calls the function point? Get rid of this whole function.
> >
> > You shouldn't need to use function pointers to do this; that's too
> > many levels of abstraction.
>
> I feel it so diffcult to consider the fixing this patch more.
>
> There are some reasons why I have become such a description.
> - The purpose of this patch is the resolution of the
> line over 80 characters issue
> - I Wrote the code to be aware of the following:
> -- Do not change the procedure
> -- The shallow nest
> -- To avoid the redundancy
>
> If I do not use a function pointer, which take the form below.
>
> if (0x00 == data[i + 2])
> dev_dbg(&port->dev, "Line status status.\n");
> else
> dev_dbg(&port->dev, "Modem status status.\n");
>
> if (i > limit) {
> dev_dbg(&port->dev,
> "Illegal escape seuences in received data\n");
> return 0;
> }
>
> if (0x00 == data[i + 2])
> ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
> else
> ProcessModemStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
>
> return 1;
>
> I also feel it may be...
>
> And I am against to move the dev_dbg procedure call to
> qt_status_change_check procedure because the nesting will be so deep.
In the end, the new version is more confusing than the original
code. Checkpatch.pl is not a king which must be obeyed. The only
thing which matters is how easy it is for a human to understand the
code.
>
> >> if (urb->status) {
> >> qt_port->ReadBulkStopped = 1;
> >> - dev_dbg(&urb->dev->dev, "%s - nonzero write bulk status received: %d\n",
> >> + dev_dbg(&urb->dev->dev,
> >> + "%s - nonzero write bulk status received: %d\n",
> >> __func__, urb->status);
> >
> > Don't mix in these unrelated 80 character limit changes.
>
> I think the purpose of refactoring is the resolution of the line over 80
> characters issue. I think that the separation of the patch should stop taking
> because they are already applied in the linux-next tree.
>
Yes, once it is merged into linux-next then it is too late to send a
version 2 patch.
I'm explaining that as a reviewer it is confusing for me to figure
out when you do unrelated things in the same patch and mix
everything up.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
