Re: [RFC 13/19] staging: qlge: rewrite do while loop as for loop in qlge_sem_spinlock

Coiby Xu
2021-07-03T00:00:30Z

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 09:35:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>On Thu, 2021-07-01 at 07:33 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 03:58:06AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 19:22 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:20:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
>> > > > > Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while
>> > > > > loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY.
>> > []
>> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
>> > []
>> > I also think using UDELAY_DELAY is silly and essentially misleading
>> > as it's also used as an argument value for mdelay
>> >
>> > $ git grep -w UDELAY_DELAY
>> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h:#define UDELAY_DELAY 100
>> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
>> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
>> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
>> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
>> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); /* 100ms */
>>
>> Thanks for spotting this issue! How about "#define MDELAY_DELAY 100" for
>> mdelay?
>
>I think the define is pointless and it'd be more readable
>to just use 100 in all the cases.
>
>IMO: There really aren't enough cases to justify using defines.

I thought magic number should be avoided if possible. This case is new
to me. Thanks for the explanation!

>
>

--
Best regards,
Coiby