Am 24.06.2012 08:16, schrieb Blue Swirl: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Pavel Hrdina <phrd...@redhat.com> wrote: >> After rewrite DSKCHG bit handling the test has to be updated. Now >> is needed to seek to different track to clear DSKCHG bit. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Hrdina <phrd...@redhat.com> >> --- >> tests/fdc-test.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tests/fdc-test.c b/tests/fdc-test.c >> index 610e2f1..5280eff 100644 >> --- a/tests/fdc-test.c >> +++ b/tests/fdc-test.c >> @@ -156,19 +156,20 @@ static uint8_t send_read_command(void) >> return ret; >> } >> >> -static void send_step_pulse(void) >> +static void send_step_pulse(bool chg_cyl) >> { >> int drive = 0; >> int head = 0; >> - static int cyl = 0; >> + int cyl = 0; >> + >> + if (chg_cyl) >> + cyl = (cyl + 1) % 4; > > Missing braces, please use checkpatch.pl to avoid these issues. > > % 4 could be turned into & 3, maybe with a separate patch.
I wouldn't do that. It's not something like a mask for a bitfield, but just a way to let counting start from the beginning after a while. If you have two way to express the same, choose the one that expresses the clearest what the real intention is. The compiler will optimise it (not that this optimisation in a test case like this really mattered...) Kevin