Hi Finn,
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2015, Julian Calaby wrote:
>
>> > - if (overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_NCR53C400A) {
>> > + if (overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_NCR53C400A ||
>> > + overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_DTC3181E) {
>>
>> These if statements are starting to get a bit long, would it make
>> sense to replace them with a flag or equivalent?
>
> To what end? Shorter lines? As in,
Pretty much, each expression is quite long and they seem to be growing
fairly rapidly as you and Ondrej discover similar boards.
>
> if (board_is_ncr53c400a || board_is_dtc3181e) {
> /* ... */
> }
>
> I suppose that could be an improvement if new flags would entirely replace
> the override.board struct member and the existing switch statement,
>
> switch (overrides[current_override].board) {
> /* ... */
> }
>
> Or maybe you meant testing a new flag something like this,
>
> if (hostdata->ncr53c400_compatible) {
> /* ... */
> }
>
> If your concern is the Don't Repeat Yourself rule, I'm not sure that new
> flag would get tested more than once (?) And it would still have to be
> assigned using an "objectionably" long expression, e.g.
>
> hostdata->ncr53c400_compatible =
> overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_NCR53C400 ||
> overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_NCR53C400A ||
> overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_DTC3181E;
>
> Rather than add new flags, perhaps a 'switch' statement instead of an 'if'
> statement would be shorter (if the size of the expression is the problem).
I think switch statements would be cleaner in this particular
instance. I was thinking something like:
if (somthing->flags & NCR53C400_COMPATIBLE) {
/* ... */
}
but if it's only ever going to be used once, then it's pretty
pointless and switch statements are cleaner.
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
