On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 09:26:33AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> >
> > > >>> if (atomic_read(&priv->sleepstatus.status) == 0) {
> > > >>> rw_data = GCR_B_DOZE;
> > > >>> - retval =
> > > >>> - ks7010_sdio_write(priv, GCR_B, &rw_data, sizeof(rw_data));
> > > >>> - if (retval) {
> > > >>> + if (ks7010_sdio_write(priv,
> > > >>> + GCR_B,
> > > >>> + &rw_data,
> > > >>> + sizeof(rw_data))) {
> > > >>
> > > >> A multi-line function call in an if test does not look nice at all. The
> > > >> original code was an easy-to-read expectable pattern.
> > > >
> > > > I agree. I am not strict on the 80 char limit, especially in cases like
> > > > the above.
> > >
> > > Would you try an other source code formatting for the suggested change pattern?
> >
> > I don't understand the question?
>
> I think the original code was fine. x = blah(); if (x) ... is a perfectly
> familiar kernel coding pattern. There is no benefit in terms of
> performance or understandability in dropping the variable.
I certainly agree to that.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
