From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@gmail.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if indentation
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:08:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201008052308.56592.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=YauQBWyZnGpuBtQpNq=Re8WUXY9mH6FSFMP+7@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday 05 August 2010 22:51:12 Luca Tettamanti wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c b/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
> > index 685d659..695765c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
> > @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ bttv_i2c_wait_done(struct bttv *btv)
> > if (wait_event_interruptible_timeout(btv->i2c_queue,
> > btv->i2c_done, msecs_to_jiffies(85)) = -ERESTARTSYS)
> >
> > - rc = -EIO;
> > + rc = -EIO;
>
> I'd also remove the empty line before the indented statement, it's confusing...
>
The entire function looks a bit weird to me. If you look at the caller,
you'll notice that -EIO is treated in the same way as if the function had
returned zero, so the entire if() clause is pointless (the wait_event_*
probably is not).
Moreover, returning -ERESTARTSYS is probably the right action here,
why else would you make the wait interruptible?
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@gmail.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if indentation
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 23:08:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201008052308.56592.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=YauQBWyZnGpuBtQpNq=Re8WUXY9mH6FSFMP+7@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday 05 August 2010 22:51:12 Luca Tettamanti wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c b/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
> > index 685d659..695765c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/video/bt8xx/bttv-i2c.c
> > @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ bttv_i2c_wait_done(struct bttv *btv)
> > if (wait_event_interruptible_timeout(btv->i2c_queue,
> > btv->i2c_done, msecs_to_jiffies(85)) == -ERESTARTSYS)
> >
> > - rc = -EIO;
> > + rc = -EIO;
>
> I'd also remove the empty line before the indented statement, it's confusing...
>
The entire function looks a bit weird to me. If you look at the caller,
you'll notice that -EIO is treated in the same way as if the function had
returned zero, so the entire if() clause is pointless (the wait_event_*
probably is not).
Moreover, returning -ERESTARTSYS is probably the right action here,
why else would you make the wait interruptible?
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-05 21:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-05 20:29 [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if Julia Lawall
2010-08-05 20:29 ` [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if indentation Julia Lawall
2010-08-05 20:51 ` [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if Luca Tettamanti
2010-08-05 20:51 ` [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if indentation Luca Tettamanti
2010-08-05 20:51 ` Luca Tettamanti
2010-08-05 20:55 ` [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if Julia Lawall
2010-08-05 20:55 ` [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if indentation Julia Lawall
2010-08-05 20:55 ` Julia Lawall
2010-08-05 21:08 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2010-08-05 21:08 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201008052308.56592.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=julia@diku.dk \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kronos.it@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.