Re: [PATCH] trivial: adjust code alignment

Re: [PATCH] trivial: adjust code alignment

[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

Re: [PATCH] trivial: adjust code alignment

[walter harms]

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
> 

Re: [PATCH] trivial: adjust code alignment

[Julia Lawall]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, walter harms wrote:

> 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.

OK, thanks!

julia

Re: [PATCH] trivial: adjust code alignment

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:24:43PM +0200, walter harms wrote:
> 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.
> 

Gar... No, if we silence static checker warnings without fixing the
bug then we are hiding real problems and making them more difficult
to find.

Just drop this chunk.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH] trivial: adjust code alignment

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:19:18 +0200 (CEST)
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, it would be safe.  But it's hard to imagine a scenario where any of
those particular calls would fail that doesn't involve smoke.

The code is evidence of ancient laziness on my part.  I'll add fixing it
up to my list of things to do.

Thanks,

jon