From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH #upstream-fixes 1/2] libata: cleanup ata_sff_interrupt() Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:36:08 +0900 Message-ID: <4B4FE2A8.3070002@kernel.org> References: <4B4ECCCD.1040902@kernel.org> <4B4EEFF9.8060805@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:40930 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751279Ab0AODaf (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:30:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B4EEFF9.8060805@ru.mvista.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: Jeff Garzik , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , Alan Cox , Hans Werner On 01/14/2010 07:20 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> + qc = ata_qc_from_tag(ap, ap->link.active_tag); >> + if (qc && (!(qc->tf.flags & ATA_TFLAG_POLLING))) >> > > () not needed around !x. Eh... I don't know. I personally prefer using minimum number of parantheses but quite a few people dislike not using them when && & || | are mixed. In the end, I don't think it really matters. It's like debating about how far the second part of a broken line should be indented. Many people strong opinions but in the end it doesn't really matter. Anyhow, if it bothers you enough to write an email about it, I'll be happy to oblige. :-) Thanks. -- tejun