Hi Sakari,
On Monday 23 September 2013 22:57:02 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:54:22PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > @@ -248,21 +250,46 @@ __must_check int
> > > media_entity_pipeline_start(struct media_entity *entity,
> > > if (!entity->ops || !entity->ops->link_validate)
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > + bitmap_zero(active, entity->num_pads);
> > > + bitmap_fill(has_no_links, entity->num_pads);
> > > +
> > > for (i = 0; i < entity->num_links; i++) {
> > > struct media_link *link = &entity->links[i];
> > > -
> > > - /* Is this pad part of an enabled link? */
> > > - if (!(link->flags & MEDIA_LNK_FL_ENABLED))
> > > - continue;
> > > -
> > > - /* Are we the sink or not? */
> > > - if (link->sink->entity != entity)
> > > + struct media_pad *pad = link->sink->entity == entity
> > > + ? link->sink : link->source;
> >
> > What about aligning the ? to the = ? With that change,
>
> How about to the beginning of the next operand rather than "="?
>
> (Think of adding parentheses around the rvalue of "=".)
>
> I think it's fine as it was, but if it's to be changed then it should be
> aligned to link->sink->entity IMHO. :-)
My preference goes for aligning the ? under the =, but I agree it's not
logical from an rvalue point of view :-) I would favor aligning the ? under
the l of link, but enough bikeshedding for now, please pick whichever solution
you prefer :-)
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
