On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > >>> if (atomic_read(&priv->sleepstatus.status) == 0) {
> > >>> rw_data = GCR_B_DOZE;
> > >>> - retval =
> > >>> - ks7010_sdio_write(priv, GCR_B, &rw_data,
> > >>> sizeof(rw_data));
> > >>> - if (retval) {
> > >>> + if (ks7010_sdio_write(priv,
> > >>> + GCR_B,
> > >>> + &rw_data,
> > >>> + sizeof(rw_data))) {
> > >>
> > >> A multi-line function call in an if test does not look nice at all. The
> > >> original code was an easy-to-read expectable pattern.
> > >
> > > I agree. I am not strict on the 80 char limit, especially in cases like
> > > the above.
> >
> > Would you try an other source code formatting for the suggested change
> > pattern?
>
> I don't understand the question?
I think the original code was fine. x = blah(); if (x) ... is a perfectly
familiar kernel coding pattern. There is no benefit in terms of
performance or understandability in dropping the variable.
julia
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
