On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 09:25:31PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 9. Februar 2005 20:39 schrieb Greg KH: > > > For maintainability, code needs to have a few basic accommodations > > > for newcomers -- or semi-forgetful oldtimers. (I think that covers > > > pretty much every developer, come to think of it...) One of those > > > accomodations is using symbolic constants. > > > > And having to look up, "ah this field wants jiffies", was any different? > > No, I think this way is a bit more sane. > > But that is a small minority of cases. Usually you look at code > rather than write it. At then the information, which field is the > timeout value is lost.
Ok, Greg, this seems to be a pretty general concern. What would you rather see done, presuming I do go ahead and replace the patches with an appropriate constant? And where should that constant be defined? delay.h? Thanks, Nish ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
