On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:51:38PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote: >> > - return (ret == 0) ? ret : -ETIMEDOUT ; >> > + if (ret == 0) >> > + return ret; >> > + else >> > + return -ETIMEDOUT; >> >> I actually like more the original version. >> >> If you write it like this: >> >> return !ret ? ret : -ETIMEDOUT; >> >> checkpatch shouldn't complain. > > No, but I will. > > That's horrid code, please be specific and readable, no one should ever > use ?: syntax except within function parameters. > > greg k-h I've resubmitted these two patches to Mauro and cc'ed the linux-media mailing list. I'll see what Mauro thinks. Thanks, Lisa _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
