On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:39:36AM -0500, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > - if (!rc) {
> > + if (irq_timeout == 0) {
>
> Why == 0 tho? This always bothers me. To match this style, we'd use
> != 0 to test the other direction. In what way is "if (ret != 0)"
> better than "if (ret)"? We're negating the two tests needlessly.
>
The == 0 seemed better to me than ! here because it would read
if (not irq_timeout) {
while it actually did time out - but this could be resolved by renaming
irq_timeout to time_left (as was suggested by Sergei Shtylyov
<sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com> for a similar patch) and then it
would read:
if (time_left == 0) {
which would nicely describe the timeout state.
if that addresses your concerns then I'll fix it up and repost.
thx!
hofrat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
