On 02/02/2015 10:50 AM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
On 02/02/2015 09:37 AM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
return type of wait_for_completion_timeout is unsigned long not int, rather
than introducing a new variable the wait_for_completion_timeout is moved
into the if condition as the return value is only used to detect timeout.
But the return value is bound by the timeout parameter and we know that
fits into a int. And I really dont like moving the function call into the
if condition, so unless there is some additional explanation why this is
necessary and should be done I'm inclined to nack this.
well having correct types is important for all static code chekcers
and I did not want to add a new variable just for this case
simply because the result is only relevant in the == 0 case
anyway.
I do think that the types being assigned should correct with respect
to the API definition even if it fits in this case.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Aside from the fixup of the wait_for_completion_timeout handling
a minor coding style issue in the else branch was fixed - the {} is
not needed for the one-line body.
If one of the branches of a conditional statement has braces the other
branches should also have braces. This is documented in
Documentation/CodingStyle.
my bad - it is not uncommon to be asymetric - but you are right that Chapter 3
states it should not be asymetric in this case - will remove that.
given the botched braces this needs to be redone - let me know if moving
it into the condition is ok (its not uncommon) or if an additional variable
of type unsigned long is the prefered solution.
I prefer the extra variable, but that's personal taste. And maybe add the
stuff about the static code checker etc to the commit message.
Thanks,
- Lars
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
