From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f45.google.com (mail-wm1-f45.google.com [209.85.128.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12B6E2C81 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:00:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f45.google.com with SMTP id p21so11468985wmq.1 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 04:00:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LRkSXvKU2H3yNWwYA1Dskm2+OrbMFIykkcsNX7x6JHY=; b=Zt2uGQFq89/yImCzTMOWBObDDJ+N0WvJuq2vzZdU7jm5QFQ2bWNIwpcpk8ntJm4ObN c32YtN4Q6/M5U1hWk1mk1q1NMyyNhngTCvObm87r56pGDyZZISgO8okr84/D8n+jCrlo d6zbLFYEIedMaf832hRSwdhxMtj6LSCM0yFOadMoZiupMSHA/IWjs10H3i2rcY+wJeGh ZnVfasLZ+BrlNdMBQ9FAgJg7MLwz41pM8ZUz1W7vSZMQEQEBpjJ87ewcogAAhov6qLb3 03Xb5ahEFx2wR7J9gYU2PRQONGhN6VOo/ZFKoMhR9IBkrA6jc3RLJRsaniZZGaFOc9Tw wgyw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LRkSXvKU2H3yNWwYA1Dskm2+OrbMFIykkcsNX7x6JHY=; b=J0x6p8KyfFvkPOqQdNqaXvB9ObJpx+M+CekBa3ccpGbMv854cXdz5p6Z9il/1LqRZH l9UahzTTUlhBf3K700hTtQ1VQL8xYaBEHX7k9QwvOin773izKTd+V3t+as5wL/mLnlb7 kLmjdSC4MHkPgiOGFFBIIW0Z7zeYRqXDIeUSzkLGDJu+A/2Rzm1VSlxchnjcvfWyec4n DsThWLjaB5Nizry3hQI18oYQ6ozMgOOPXulMrIpX7uGvyAHcxtmnKNSAbC3vNGPuoRmf p7V+seoou9fMPdH9Q2aW1AjZoJu1lEX8ch0opG84UUiAv3hbvSc0cRtx6c6XbbQHIA16 FeWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wpT8XY32Qo8Hy/BIyv9udiB42u/S/txGJ7O7mH57lv5EKZntE E5zegju2XMzNDynP3hJoEfg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwgtsT9xA/ypF8QJmoBh1ux1sOfUKyjGJHXsWAnhKW7ahbqyu4PvzrB9hSizgmpl2IS5SYkTw== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cf03:: with SMTP id l3mr5210548wmg.25.1634641201313; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 04:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2a01:4b00:f411:e700:e085:8cb7:7bf6:5d62? ([2a01:4b00:f411:e700:e085:8cb7:7bf6:5d62]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v3sm15097529wrg.23.2021.10.19.04.00.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 19 Oct 2021 04:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <810a4e29b0c54520a30cae4d37fde0a59ea3d83b.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6655: Fix line wrapping in rf.c file From: Karolina Drobnik To: Joe Perches , Greg KH Cc: outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com, forest@alittletooquiet.net, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:59:56 +0100 In-Reply-To: <84f3c940fedb961e6e7e88d47c3d15e598bc32c3.camel@perches.com> References: <20211018150526.9718-1-karolinadrobnik@gmail.com> <84f3c940fedb961e6e7e88d47c3d15e598bc32c3.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Thank you very much for your comments. On Mon, 2021-10-18 at 17:12 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > Also, these are all just fine as-is for now. A better way to make > these lines smaller is to use better variable and function names  > that are shorter and make sense :) I have v2 ready but I'm not sure, given the Joe's patch, if my solution is a satisfactory one. I didn't jump on such refactoring as I'm still learning about the codebase/process and didn't want to muddle the waters (...more than I do already). Greg, what would you prefer? Should I back up with my patch, pick something else and let Joe's patch be merged? Also, I have a question about the patch if that's ok :) On Mon, 2021-10-18 at 22:56 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > Maybe some refactoring like: > --- > drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c | 38 > ++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c > b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c > index 0dae593c6944f..7beb0cd5a62df 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c > @@ -680,16 +680,19 @@ bool RFvWriteWakeProgSyn(struct vnt_private > *priv, unsigned char byRFType, > u16 uChannel) > { > void __iomem *iobase = priv->PortOffset; > - int ii; > + int i; > + unsigned short idx = MISCFIFO_SYNDATA_IDX; > unsigned char byInitCount = 0; > unsigned char bySleepCount = 0; > + const unsigned long *data; > > + uChannel--; > VNSvOutPortW(iobase + MAC_REG_MISCFFNDEX, 0); I see that you introduced `uChannel--` to further tidy up the lines with `[uChannel - 1]`. In general, is there anything wrong with indexing like `i - 1`? What's the preference here? DRY things up as much as possible? I'm asking because when I was reading this line, at first, it wasn't clear to me why we could decrement it (example though: "Was this modified earlier? Do we need to "correct" it?"). Thanks, Karolina