Hi Alan, Sergei,
On 10/11/10 17:27, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Igor Grinberg wrote:
>
>>>> - for (i = 0; i< ARRAY_SIZE(ulpi_ids); i++)
>>>> - if (ulpi_ids[i] == ULPI_ID(vid, pid))
>>>> + for (i = 0; i< ARRAY_SIZE(ulpi_ids); i++) {
>>>> + if (ulpi_ids[i].id == ULPI_ID(vid, pid)) {
>>>> + pr_info("Found %s ULPI transceiver.\n",
>>>> + ulpi_ids[i].name);
>>>> break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>> Note that {} for the loop are not necessary.
>> Correct.
>> Though I think it improves the readability, because the statement in the loop
>> is a compound statement, but Documentation/CodingStyle says to get rid
>> of those, while making no difference between simple and compound statements.
>> I'll wait for some other comments (if any) and then repost.
> For what it's worth, I agree. The guidelines in
> Documentation/CodingStyle are not meant to be cast in stone as "the
> only way to do it". Linus has said many times that overall readability
> is more important.
I see... If that is the case, I'd like (if there are no further objections)
to have this patch (and the 1/2) at Greg's tree without resubmitting.
Thanks.
--
Regards,
Igor.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
