On 02/22/2014 08:54 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:52:30 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 02/22/2014 05:32 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 20:32:39 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
@@ -286,8 +286,8 @@ static ssize_t set_crit_hyst(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
const char *buf, size_t count)
{
struct lm95245_data *data = lm95245_update_device(dev);
- struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
int index = to_sensor_dev_attr(attr)->index;
+ struct i2c_client *client = data->client;
I'm curious why you're swapping these lines? I can't find a rationale
for it, and it makes the patch (very slightly) larger.
Habit I picked up from one of the Intel maintainers ... long variable names
first. It makes the code look a bit nicer.
I agree with the idea in general, when writing the code, it indeed
makes the code easier to read. However moving a declaration along later
because it is now 4 characters shorter than it used to be... Seems a
bit difficult to justify ;-)
No big deal anyway. I'm not doing the work so I don't really have my
say!
H Jean,
I just like it neat :-). Other side of the coin would be that keeping it
sorted early on only to let it deteriorate later doesn't sound good either.
I'll resubmit the entire series. After making the change to no longer use
update_device in the set function, the code looked too much different to
just use your Reviewed-by.
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
