On 10/17/10 08:46, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> 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.
Errr... It is already there...
Thanks Greg :)
--
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
