From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:08:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if indentation Message-Id: <201008052308.56592.arnd@arndb.de> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Luca Tettamanti Cc: Julia Lawall , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org 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