Re: [PATCH] trivial: adjust code alignment

walter harms
2013-08-05T16:24:43Z

Hello Julia,

IMHO keep the patch as it is.
It does not change any code that is good.
Suspicious code that comes up here can be addressed
in a separate patch.

just my 2 cents,
re,
wh

Am 05.08.2013 18:19, schrieb Julia Lawall:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 04:47:39PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
>>> index e8a1ce2..4a5a5dc 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ov7670.c
>>> @@ -1369,8 +1369,8 @@ static int ov7670_s_exp(struct v4l2_subdev *sd,
>>> int value)
>>> unsigned char com1, com8, aech, aechh;
>>>
>>> ret = ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM1, &com1) +
>>> - ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM8, &com8);
>>> - ov7670_read(sd, REG_AECHH, &aechh);
>>> + ov7670_read(sd, REG_COM8, &com8);
>>> + ov7670_read(sd, REG_AECHH, &aechh);
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>
>> The new indenting isn't correct here and anyway the intent was to
>> combine all the error codes together and return them as an error
>> code jumble. I'm not a fan of error code jumbles, probably the
>> right thing is to check each function call or, barring that, to
>> return -EIO.
>
> Oops, thanks for spotting that. I'm not sure whether it is safe to
> abort these calls as soon as the first one fails, but perhaps I could
> introduce some more variables, and test them all afterwards.
>
> What should I do with the big patch? Resend it with this cut out? Or,
> considering that I might have overlooked something else, send 90 some
> little ones?
>
> thanks,
> julia
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>