On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:02:33 +0300
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Sanidhya Solanki <jpage.l...@gmail.com>
> > @@ -110,7 +98,16 @@ static ssize_t dgnc_vpd_show(struct device *p, struct
> > device_attribute *attr,
> > int count = 0;
> > int i = 0;
> >
> > - DGNC_VERIFY_BOARD(p, bd);
> > + do {
> > + if (!p)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + bd = dev_get_drvdata(p);
> > + if (!bd || bd->magic != DGNC_BOARD_MAGIC)
> > + return 0;
> > + if (bd->state != BOARD_READY)
> > + return 0;
> > + } while (0);
>
> Google about why do while(0) loops are used in macros and then redo
> this. Mostly the patch isn't bad, but I suspect I'm going to complain
> about how you split up some of the long lines.
Let me just be completely sure that you and I are on the same page here. The
macro was used to replace the do-while loop, I replaced all instances of the
macro with the the actual loop. Both pieces were originally part of the code,
just using macros in place of do-while statements. Do you still want me to
change it? Maybe the original author did it for a specific reason.
Thanks
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
