From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@gmail.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if indentation
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 23:08:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201008052308.56592.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=YauQBWyZnGpuBtQpNq=Re8WUXY9mH6FSFMP+7@mail.gmail.com>
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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-05 21:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-05 20:29 [PATCH 42/42] drivers/media/video/bt8xx: Adjust confusing if indentation Julia Lawall
2010-08-05 20:51 ` Luca Tettamanti
2010-08-05 20:55 ` Julia Lawall
2010-08-05 21:08 ` Arnd Bergmann [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=201008052308.56592.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=julia@diku.dk \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kronos.it@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox