Hi Jean, On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:17:35AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:46:10 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:48:47AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Hi Guenter, > > > > > > Wow, 6 patches :) > > > > > Just because I switched to git. Makes it much easier to me to handle > > a sequence of patches. Yes, I know, it probably works with svn as well. > > Just a personal preference ... > > Actually, no, SVN would be horrible for this I think. Quilt, OTOH, > would work just fine. > For some reason, Quilt and me seem to be at odds with each other. No idea why. I tried, but it just doesn't work for me. Maybe it is too simple for me to understand ;). > > > (...) > > > This looks good, however I think the code can be cleaned up further by > > > getting rid of maskp. I introduced maskp [1] because the mask could be > > > at two different places on the command line, but now it is no longer > > > needed. > > > > Not sure how, though, since we either need the index to argv[mask] or the pointer, > > or we would have to read the mask while checking the parameters. The latter > > doesn't look very clean to me. > > The latter is actually what I had in mind. But if you don't like the > idea, just leave the code as it is. > Problem with that is that I can not check the value range at that time, and I don't know if mask is a valid parameter to start with. So there would have to be a value check later on anyway (which I just agreed to add). I think it is better to keep reading the value and the range check together. Thanks, Guenter -- 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
