Dave Jones wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 02:57:44PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Tejun Heo wrote: > > >> + if (class == ATA_DEV_ATA) > > >> + class = ATA_DEV_ATAPI; > > >> + else > > >> + class = ATA_DEV_ATA; > > > > > > > > > the 'else' branch is obviously redundant > > > > Why? We can also fallback from ATAPI to ATA. > > Then did you mean to write.. > > + if (class == ATA_DEV_ATA) > + class = ATA_DEV_ATAPI; > + else if (class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI) > + class = ATA_DEV_ATA; > > ? > > Otherwise, as Jeff mentions, you're doing a redundant assignment > in the else branch. Hmmm... I'm feeling very dense today. At that point, class is either ATA_DEV_ATA or ATA_DEV_ATAPI. The if-else clause tries to flip between the two. 1. if class == ATA_DEV_ATA, the 'if' test succeeds and "class = ATA_DEV_ATAPI" runs, so it flips correctly. 2. if class == ATA_DEV_ATAPI, the 'if' test fails and "class = ATA_DEV_ATA" runs, so it flips correctly. What am I missing here? Feel free to scream at me and hammer me into senses. :-) -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
