On 08/11/14 21:23, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 22:14 +0100, Krzysztof Konopko wrote:
>> scripts/checkpatch.pl reports a coding style problem in xmit_linux.c
> []
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/xmit_linux.c
>> b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/xmit_linux.c
> []
>> @@ -67,9 +67,8 @@ uint _rtw_pktfile_read(struct pkt_file *pfile, u8 *rmem,
>> uint rlen)
>> int rtw_endofpktfile(struct pkt_file *pfile)
>> {
>>
>> - if (pfile->pkt_len == 0) {
>> + if (pfile->pkt_len == 0)
>> return true;
>> - }
>>
>>
>> return false;
>
> This should probably be
>
> bool rtw_endofpktfile(const struct pkt_file *pfile_
> {
> return !pfile->pkt_len;
> }
>
Thanks for looking into it.
I see your point about making it a single return statement. I tend to
shorten things as well. I'd keep it as this:
bool rtw_endofpktfile(const struct pkt_file *pfile_
{
return pfile->pkt_len == 0;
}
Usign `!` operator suggests the variable is boolean although the name
suggests it isn't. I'm not so familiar with the linux kernel code base
yet to justify it myself but I see no harm in making it slightly more
explicit.
> or just removed altogether and tested directly
> in the one place it's used.
>
>
It looks to me that the original intention was to open a possibility to
define the end of packet file in a OS dependent way so I'd leave it.
Or, if the counter argument is that non-Linux functionality should not
appear in this driver, the rest of non-Linux code should be removed in
the first place. I'm not in position to even have an opinion on this.
The sole point of this patch was to fix a coding style problem but the
change you suggest seems still relevant. I'll resend unless you have
strong objections on using `==` operator explicitly in the return statement.
Cheers,
Kris
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
