On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:06:34PM -0700, Lisa Nguyen wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/staging/bcm/Bcmchar.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/bcm/Bcmchar.c
>> @@ -287,9 +287,9 @@ static long bcm_char_ioctl(struct file *filp, UINT cmd, ULONG arg)
>> struct bcm_rdm_buffer sRdmBuffer = {0};
>> PCHAR temp_buff = NULL;
>> UINT uiTempVar = 0;
>> - if ((Adapter->IdleMode == TRUE) ||
>> - (Adapter->bShutStatus == TRUE) ||
>> - (Adapter->bPreparingForLowPowerMode == TRUE)) {
>> + if ((Adapter->IdleMode == true) ||
>> + (Adapter->bShutStatus == true) ||
>> + (Adapter->bPreparingForLowPowerMode == true)) {
>
> Your patch is fine but these variable names suck. How is "Mode" or
> "Status" true or false? It should be something like:
>
> if (adapter->idle || adapter->shutdown ||
> addapter->preparing_for_low_power) {
>
> (I assume that's what the code is trying to say).
A big chunk of the bcm driver code is ugly to begin with.
I was focused on cleaning up pointless typedefs before attempting to
rewrite the conditionals as they are an eyesore. I haven't read too
much into the code yet.
I'd agree with your assumption.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
