On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Yuping Luo wrote: > 2011/10/20 Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:01:47 -0700, Yuping Luo <lypingsh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> @@ -2027,9 +2037,9 @@ static int do_scsi_command(struct fsg_common > >> *common) > >> > >> case READ_6: > >> i = common->cmnd[4]; > >> - common->data_size_from_cmnd = (i == 0 ? 256 : i) << > >> - common->curlun->blkbits; > >> - reply = check_command(common, 6, DATA_DIR_TO_HOST, > >> + common->data_size_from_cmnd = (i == 0 ? 256 : i); > > > > At this point parens are not really needed. > > > agree, the following is more readable > common->data_size_from_cmnd = (i == 0) ? 256 : i; This is a matter of personal taste. I find it less readable. In order to parse that expression correctly, you have to know whether the '=' operator has higher or lower precedence than the '?' operator. I can't be bothered to remember details like that, so I always put the entire right-hand argument of the assignment inside parens. (Of course, then I face the problem of whether '==' has higher or lower precedence than '?'. It may be illogical, but I'm more willing to deal with that ambiguity than the other one.) Alan Stern -- 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
