From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
To: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>,
linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: fixup return type of wait_for_completion_timeout
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:38:41 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54DA3411.3050309@cogentembedded.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150210155517.GB1883@opentech.at>
On 02/10/2015 06:55 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:39:36AM -0500, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>>> - if (!rc) {
>>> + if (irq_timeout == 0) {
>> Why == 0 tho? This always bothers me. To match this style, we'd use
>> != 0 to test the other direction. In what way is "if (ret != 0)"
>> better than "if (ret)"? We're negating the two tests needlessly.
> The == 0 seemed better to me than ! here because it would read
> if (not irq_timeout) {
No, 'irq_timeout == 0' isn't really better.
> while it actually did time out - but this could be resolved by renaming
> irq_timeout to time_left (as was suggested by Sergei Shtylyov
> <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> for a similar patch) and then it
> would read:
> if (time_left == 0) {
> which would nicely describe the timeout state.
'!time_left' also would.
> if that addresses your concerns then I'll fix it up and repost.
> thx!
> hofrat
MBR, Sergei
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-10 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-10 8:39 [PATCH] libata: fixup return type of wait_for_completion_timeout Nicholas Mc Guire
2015-02-10 14:53 ` Tejun Heo
2015-02-10 15:55 ` Nicholas Mc Guire
2015-02-10 15:56 ` Tejun Heo
2015-02-10 16:38 ` Sergei Shtylyov [this message]
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=54DA3411.3050309@cogentembedded.com \
--to=sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com \
--cc=der.herr@hofr.at \
--cc=hofrat@osadl.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.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.