On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:54:30AM +0100, matej.kupljen@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Ben,
>
> >> - struct i2c_pnx_algo_data *alg_data)
> >> + struct i2c_pnx_algo_data *alg_data, int repeated)
> >
> > bool repeated.
>
> I don't agree.
> Since this is C and C++, we do not have a bool keyword.
> And, there is no variable declared as bool in the source file this
> is why and defined this as int and not as bool.
the kernel has this.
> >> + if ((!repeated) && (wait_timeout(I2C_PNX_TIMEOUT, alg_data))) {
> >
> > no need for () around !repeated.
>
> Agreed, but for the clarity sake.
Makes it less clear, there's more on each line.
> >> + if((i > 0) && !(pmsg->flags & I2C_M_NOSTART))
> >
> > no need for () around i > 0
>
> Same as above. I my opinion it is better to use more parentheses then
> fewer, since you do not rely on compiler implementation.
>
> Regards,
> Matej
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Ben Dooks, ben@xxxxxxxxx, http://www.fluff.org/ben/
Large Hadron Colada: A large Pina Colada that makes the universe disappear.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
