>>> @@ -90,7 +90,6 @@ static int ks7010_sdio_write(struct ks_wlan_private *priv, unsigned int address,
>>> void ks_wlan_hw_sleep_doze_request(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
>>> {
>>> unsigned char rw_data;
>>> - int retval;
>>>
>>> DPRINTK(4, "\n");
>>>
>>> @@ -99,9 +98,10 @@ void ks_wlan_hw_sleep_doze_request(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
>>>
>>> if (atomic_read(&priv->sleepstatus.status) == 0) {
>>> rw_data = GCR_B_DOZE;
>>> - retval =
>>> - ks7010_sdio_write(priv, GCR_B, &rw_data, sizeof(rw_data));
>>> - if (retval) {
>>> + if (ks7010_sdio_write(priv,
>>> + GCR_B,
>>> + &rw_data,
>>> + sizeof(rw_data))) {
>>
>> A multi-line function call in an if test does not look nice at all. The
>> original code was an easy-to-read expectable pattern.
>
> I agree. I am not strict on the 80 char limit, especially in cases like
> the above.
Would you try an other source code formatting for the suggested change pattern?
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
