On 02/10/2015 06:55 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire 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) {
No, 'irq_timeout == 0' isn't really better.
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.
'!time_left' also would.
if that addresses your concerns then I'll fix it up and repost.
thx!
hofrat
MBR, Sergei
--
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/
