Re: [PATCH] libata: fixup return type of wait_for_completion_timeout

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:39:36AM -0500, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> -	if (!rc) {
> +	if (irq_timeout == 0) {

Why == 0 tho?  This always bothers me.  To match this style, we'd use
!= 0 to test the other direction.  In what way is "if (ret != 0)"
better than "if (ret)"?  We're negating the two tests needlessly.

Thanks.

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux RAID]     [Git]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Newbie]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux