On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:51:38PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote: > > - return (ret == 0) ? ret : -ETIMEDOUT ; > > + if (ret == 0) > > + return ret; > > + else > > + return -ETIMEDOUT; > > I actually like more the original version. > > If you write it like this: > > return !ret ? ret : -ETIMEDOUT; > > checkpatch shouldn't complain.
No, but I will. That's horrid code, please be specific and readable, no one should ever use ?: syntax except within function parameters. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
