On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Luis de Bethencourt
<luis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 03:37:20PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Luis de Bethencourt
>> <luis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >> > if (dm_digtable.dig_algorithm_switch) {
>> >> > @@ -3062,7 +3062,8 @@ static void dm_dynamic_txpower(struct net_device *dev)
>> >> > priv->bDynamicTxLowPower = false;
>> >> > } else {
>> >> > /* high power state check */
>> >> > - if (priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb < txlowpower_threshold && priv->bDynamicTxHighPower == true)
>> >> > + if (priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb <
>> >> > + txlowpower_threshold && priv->bDynamicTxHighPower)
>> >> > priv->bDynamicTxHighPower = false;
>> >>
>> >> Oh, this has a misleading air hanging over it. It focuses the eyes on
>> >> "txlowpower_threshold && priv->bDynamicTxHighPower", while that
>> >> probably isn't the intent.
>> >>
>> >> Frans
>> >
>> > I agree, and wasn't sure what the best way to deal with was.
>> >
>> > The following doesn't mislead but goes above 80 characters.
>> > if (priv->undecorated_smoothed_pwdb < txlowpower_threshold &&
>> > priv->bDynamicTxHighPower == true)
>> >
>> > It is better than the original but it doesn't completely fix it.
>> >
>> > If this is a better compromise I can update the patch.
>>
>> If we keep people's internal parsers working properly, I think having
>> a line of three characters too long is a fair compromise. Besides
>> that, there are a lot more lines of code in that file that need to be
>> brought back to under 80 characters.
>>
>> If you really care about that line length, precede with a patch (or
>> two) that changes those insanely long (local!) variable names, so that
>> you can break up the line right away.
>>
>> Have fun,
>> Frans
>
> Very true. There are a *lot* of massively long lines.
>
> This has been a learning experience. I wasn't sure how strict the rules for
> submissions were.
Well, as far as I know "Don't break internal parsers" wins over
"Checkpatch complains". However, checkpatch usually does have a nose
for smelly code (as does sparse, btw), so it pays to look around a bit
if it complains. In the end the maintainer decides whether a patch
passes the criteria.
> There are other things besides line lengths that I want to fix in
> rtl8192u. Related to that, I just sent a 3rd version which includes fixes for
> these bool comparisons for the rest of the files in drivers/staging/rtl8192u/
>
> Thanks so much for taking the time to review. Appreciated.
No problem. Was waiting for a yocto build to finish anyway.
Frans
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
