Em Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:35:28 +0530
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> checkpatch complains about the logical operator, which should be on the
> previous line.
IMHO, this is a matter of personal taste. I prefer to keep the operator
on the next line, as it makes clearer to see why the logic was broken.
Anyway, this patch doesn't apply.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/media/lirc/lirc_parallel.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/lirc/lirc_parallel.c b/drivers/staging/media/lirc/lirc_parallel.c
> index e09894d..0156114 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/media/lirc/lirc_parallel.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/lirc/lirc_parallel.c
> @@ -157,9 +157,9 @@ static unsigned int init_lirc_timer(void)
> count++;
> level = newlevel;
> do_gettimeofday(&now);
> - } while (count < 1000 && (now.tv_sec < tv.tv_sec
> - || (now.tv_sec == tv.tv_sec
> - && now.tv_usec < tv.tv_usec)));
> + } while (count < 1000 && (now.tv_sec < tv.tv_sec ||
> + (now.tv_sec == tv.tv_sec &&
> + now.tv_usec < tv.tv_usec)));
>
> timeelapsed = (now.tv_sec + 1 - tv.tv_sec) * 1000000
> + (now.tv_usec - tv.tv_usec);
> @@ -279,8 +279,8 @@ static void lirc_lirc_irq_handler(void *blah)
> level = newlevel;
>
> /* giving up */
> - if (signal > timeout
> - || (check_pselecd && (in(1) & LP_PSELECD))) {
> + if (signal > timeout ||
> + (check_pselecd && (in(1) & LP_PSELECD))) {
> signal = 0;
> pr_notice("timeout\n");
> break;
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
