Btw, if you don't get any messages from me that means I have given your
patch the stamp of approval. So good job on your previous patchset. :)
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 03:54:49PM -0500, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> @@ -1613,7 +1616,8 @@ static void dgap_tty_uninit(struct board_t *brd)
> * dgap_sniff - Dump data out to the "sniff" buffer if the
> * proc sniff file is opened...
> */
> -static void dgap_sniff_nowait_nolock(struct channel_t *ch, uchar *text, uchar *buf, int len)
> +static void dgap_sniff_nowait_nolock(struct channel_t *ch, uchar *text,
> + uchar *buf, int len)
These don't line up properly. Here is what it looks like:
static void dgap_sniff_nowait_nolock(struct channel_t *ch, uchar *text,
uchar *buf, int len)
This is what it should look like:
static void dgap_sniff_nowait_nolock(struct channel_t *ch, uchar *text,
uchar *buf, int len)
[tab][tab][tab][tab][space][space][space][space][space]uchar *buf...
> @@ -1686,7 +1692,8 @@ static void dgap_sniff_nowait_nolock(struct channel_t *ch, uchar *text, uchar *b
> r = SNIFF_MAX - ch->ch_sniff_in;
>
> if (r <= n) {
> - memcpy(ch->ch_sniff_buf + ch->ch_sniff_in, p, r);
> + memcpy(ch->ch_sniff_buf + ch->ch_sniff_in,
> + p, r);
Function arguments line up:
memcpy(ch->ch_sniff_buf + ch->ch_sniff_in, p,
r);
> @@ -2255,7 +2265,8 @@ static int dgap_block_til_ready(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *file, struc
> * touched safely, the close routine will signal the
> * ch_wait_flags to wake us back up.
> */
> - if (!((ch->ch_tun.un_flags | ch->ch_pun.un_flags) & UN_CLOSING)) {
> + if (!((ch->ch_tun.un_flags | ch->ch_pun.un_flags) &
> + UN_CLOSING)) {
This one lines up like this:
if (!((ch->ch_tun.un_flags | ch->ch_pun.un_flags) &
UN_CLOSING)) {
With the 'U' and third '(' on the same column.
Breaking the lines up like this isn't ideal, of course. I would be
tempted to leave the code as-is. In the end, we always apply
checkpatch.pl fixes to stop people from resending them over and over but
it's not the king of the world.
> @@ -2431,7 +2444,8 @@ static void dgap_tty_close(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *file)
> * Only officially close channel if count is 0 and
> * DIGI_PRINTER bit is not set.
> */
> - if ((ch->ch_open_count == 0) && !(ch->ch_digi.digi_flags & DIGI_PRINTER)) {
> + if ((ch->ch_open_count == 0) &&
> + !(ch->ch_digi.digi_flags & DIGI_PRINTER)) {
>
> ch->ch_flags &= ~(CH_RXBLOCK);
On this one breaking the live up doesn't hurt readabilty at all. It
should look like this.
if ((ch->ch_open_count == 0) &&
!(ch->ch_digi.digi_flags & DIGI_PRINTER)) {
ch->ch_flags &= ~(CH_RXBLOCK);
That way it's more cear that "ch->ch_flags &= ~(CH_RXBLOCK);" is not
at the same indent level as "!(ch->ch_digi.digi_flags & DIGI_PRINTER))"
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
