On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Axel Lin wrote:
> Use ACPI_FAILURE() to replace !ACPI_SUCCESS(), this avoid !! operations.
Surely no compiler is _that_ idiotic for it to make any difference to
generated code?
Anyway, it is arguably more readable, so I certainly have nothing
against the change on that grounds.
for the thinkpad-acpi bits:
Acked-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> index b65ce75..31fb979 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
> @@ -9018,7 +9018,7 @@ static int mute_led_on_off(struct tp_led_table *t, bool state)
> acpi_handle temp;
> int output;
>
> - if (!ACPI_SUCCESS(acpi_get_handle(hkey_handle, t->name, &temp))) {
> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_get_handle(hkey_handle, t->name, &temp))) {
> pr_warn("Thinkpad ACPI has no %s interface.\n", t->name);
> return -EIO;
> }
--
Henrique Holschuh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
