From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Gilad Broner" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] scsi: ufs: add trace events and dump prints for debug Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 08:33:49 -0000 Message-ID: <0a3014d48540bedb0ca333903934c40e.squirrel@codeaurora.org> References: <1424678898-3723-1-git-send-email-gbroner@codeaurora.org> <1424678898-3723-4-git-send-email-gbroner@codeaurora.org> <20150223121242.08d4c008@gandalf.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150223121242.08d4c008@gandalf.local.home> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Gilad Broner , james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, santoshsy@gmail.com, linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org, subhashj@codeaurora.org, ygardi@codeaurora.org, draviv@codeaurora.org, Lee Susman , Sujit Reddy Thumma , Vinayak Holikatti , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Ingo Molnar List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > If I understand the patch above, you basically have: > > if (....) > goto out; > else > ret = ufshcd_resume(); > out: > > Wouldn't it be better to just reverse the above if condition? > > if (!...) > ret = ufshcd_resume(); > > That would be much less confusing. It gives a logical place to put the comment, but I agree it will be less confusing the other way. I will fix this in the next patchset. -- Qualcomm Israel, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project