On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:04:28AM +0600, Gorskin Ilya wrote:
> -     if(((Adapter->bPreparingForLowPowerMode == TRUE) && 
> (Adapter->bDoSuspend == TRUE)) ||
> -             psIntfAdapter->bSuspended ||
> -             psIntfAdapter->bPreparingForBusSuspend)
> -     {
> -                     BCM_DEBUG_PRINT(Adapter,DBG_TYPE_OTHERS, INTF_INIT, 
> DBG_LVL_ALL,"Interrupt call back is called while suspending the device");
> +     if (((Adapter->bPreparingForLowPowerMode == TRUE) &&
> +                             (Adapter->bDoSuspend == TRUE)) ||
> +                             psIntfAdapter->bSuspended ||
> +                             psIntfAdapter->bPreparingForBusSuspend) {
> +                     BCM_DEBUG_PRINT(Adapter, DBG_TYPE_OTHERS, INTF_INIT,
> +                                     DBG_LVL_ALL,
> +                                     "Interrupt call back is called
> +                                     while suspending the device");
>                       return ;

Hi,

Thanks for doing this, these changes are welcome.  However, they
should be done slightly differently.

Take one type of checkpatch warning at a time and fix that one over
the file, then do a separate patch for the next type of warning.
[patch 1/2] Staging: bcm: move curly braces in InterfaceIsr.c
[patch 2/2] Staging: bcm: clean up conditions in InterfaceIsr.c

Something like that.

Also the way you've indented the condition is not right.  The
conditions which are && together should line up like this:

        if (((Adapter->bPreparingForLowPowerMode == TRUE) &&
             (Adapter->bDoSuspend == TRUE)) ||
            psIntfAdapter->bSuspended ||
            psIntfAdapter->bPreparingForBusSuspend) {

Also the condition has too many parenthesis.  Everyone knows how the
precedence works in:
        if (foo == 3 || bar == 4) {
We don't need to specify:
        if ((foo == 3) || (bar == 4)) {

Putting extra parenthesis make the code harder to read and has lead
to == vs = bugs which would have been caught by gcc:
warning: suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value 
[-Wparentheses]

Also can we just leave off the "== TRUE", or is this a case where it
can "== TRUE", "== FALSE", and "== FILENOTFOUND"?

Finally, this is not quoted correctly.
> +                                     "Interrupt call back is called
> +                                     while suspending the device");
Don't break those string literals up across multiple lines, but if
you do then you need to add quotes.
                                        "Interrupt call back is called"
                                                                      ^
                                        "while suspending the device");
                                        ^

regards,
dan carpenter


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to