On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 04:55:17PM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> The == 0 seemed better to me than ! here because it would read
>
> if (not irq_timeout) {
>
> while it actually did time out - but this could be resolved by renaming
> irq_timeout to time_left (as was suggested by Sergei Shtylyov
> <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> for a similar patch) and then it
> would read:
>
> if (time_left == 0) {
>
> which would nicely describe the timeout state.
>
> if that addresses your concerns then I'll fix it up and repost.
Plesae just do !
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
