On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 11:20 +0000, Chen, Yu C wrote: > On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 22:30 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: [] > > > + case SURFACE_BUTTON_NOTIFY_PRESS_HOME: > > > + pressed = true; > > > + case SURFACE_BUTTON_NOTIFY_RELEASE_HOME: > > > + key_code = KEY_LEFTMETA; > > > + break; > > > > It may be better to add a comment about the style or > > maybe add a macro like > > > > #define HANDLE_SURFACE_BUTTON_NOTIFY(type, code) \ > > case SURFACE_BUTTON_NOTIFY_PRESS_##type: \ > > pressed = true; /* and fall-through */ \ > > case SURFACE_BUTTON_NOTIFY_RELEASE_##type: \ > > key_code = code; \ > > break; > > > WRT macro HANDLE_SURFACE_BUTTON_NOTIFY, the checkpatch.pl > complains that multi lines of codes should be wrapped in 'do > while'state, but doing like this might lead to incorrect semantic.
checkpatch is a brainless tool that should be ignored whenever you want. > Is it ok to keep these codes and add comments like: Up to you. It'd OK to do nothing too. -- 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/
