* [patch] sparc: indent an if statement
@ 2016-11-25 11:02 Dan Carpenter
2016-11-25 21:00 ` Sam Ravnborg
2016-11-25 21:28 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2016-11-25 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
The code works fine, but my static checker complains when we don't
indent our if statements.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
diff --git a/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c b/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c
index 6d8dc2a..43f7d99 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static void prom_adjust_ranges(struct linux_prom_ranges *ranges1, int nranges1,
if (ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_space = ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_space &&
ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_base >= ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_base &&
ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_base + ranges2[rng2c].or_size - ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_base > 0U)
- break;
+ break;
if (rng2c = nranges2) /* oops */
prom_printf("adjust_ranges: Could not find matching bus type...\n");
else if (ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_base + ranges1[rng1c].or_size > ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_base + ranges2[rng2c].or_size)
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] sparc: indent an if statement
2016-11-25 11:02 [patch] sparc: indent an if statement Dan Carpenter
@ 2016-11-25 21:00 ` Sam Ravnborg
2016-11-25 21:28 ` Dan Carpenter
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Sam Ravnborg @ 2016-11-25 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
Hi Dan.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 02:02:50PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The code works fine, but my static checker complains when we don't
> indent our if statements.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
>
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c b/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c
> index 6d8dc2a..43f7d99 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static void prom_adjust_ranges(struct linux_prom_ranges *ranges1, int nranges1,
> if (ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_space = ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_space &&
> ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_base >= ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_base &&
> ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_base + ranges2[rng2c].or_size - ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_base > 0U)
> - break;
> + break;
> if (rng2c = nranges2) /* oops */
> prom_printf("adjust_ranges: Could not find matching bus type...\n");
> else if (ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_base + ranges1[rng1c].or_size > ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_base + ranges2[rng2c].or_size)
This is one ugly looking function....
If we are anyway fixing indent thus increasign readability,
then how about doing just a little more.
Like this untested patch.
I do not claim it is readable, but it is an improvement.
Sam
diff --git a/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c b/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c
index 6d8dc2a..271d62d 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/prom/ranges.c
@@ -37,19 +37,25 @@ static void prom_adjust_ranges(struct linux_prom_ranges *ranges1, int nranges1,
struct linux_prom_ranges *ranges2, int nranges2)
{
int rng1c, rng2c;
+ struct linux_prom_ranges **rng1;
+ struct linux_prom_ranges **rng2;
for (rng1c = 0; rng1c < nranges1; rng1c++) {
- for (rng2c = 0; rng2c < nranges2; rng2c++)
- if (ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_space = ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_space &&
- ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_base >= ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_base &&
- ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_base + ranges2[rng2c].or_size - ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_base > 0U)
- break;
+ rng1 = &ranges1[rng1c];
+ rng2 = &ranges2[0];
+ for (rng2c = 0; rng2c < nranges2; rng2c++) {
+ rng2 = &ranges2[rng2c];
+ if (rng1->ot_parent_space = rng2->ot_child_space &&
+ rng1->ot_parent_base >= rng2->ot_child_base &&
+ rng2->ot_child_base + rng2->or_size - rng1->ot_parent_base > 0U)
+ break;
+ }
if (rng2c = nranges2) /* oops */
prom_printf("adjust_ranges: Could not find matching bus type...\n");
- else if (ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_base + ranges1[rng1c].or_size > ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_base + ranges2[rng2c].or_size)
- ranges1[rng1c].or_size = ranges2[rng2c].ot_child_base + ranges2[rng2c].or_size - ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_base;
- ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_space = ranges2[rng2c].ot_parent_space;
- ranges1[rng1c].ot_parent_base += ranges2[rng2c].ot_parent_base;
+ else if (rng1->ot_parent_base + rng1->or_size > rng2->ot_child_base + rng2->or_size)
+ rng1->or_size = rng2->ot_child_base + rng2->or_size - rng1->ot_parent_base;
+ rng1->ot_parent_space = rng2->ot_parent_space;
+ rng1->ot_parent_base += rng2->ot_parent_base;
}
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] sparc: indent an if statement
2016-11-25 11:02 [patch] sparc: indent an if statement Dan Carpenter
2016-11-25 21:00 ` Sam Ravnborg
@ 2016-11-25 21:28 ` Dan Carpenter
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2016-11-25 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel-janitors
Yeah. That's nicer...
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-11-25 21:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-11-25 11:02 [patch] sparc: indent an if statement Dan Carpenter
2016-11-25 21:00 ` Sam Ravnborg
2016-11-25 21:28 ` Dan Carpenter
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).