On 04.11.2010 01:01, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 07:41 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>
> I have some nitpicking...see comments inline:
>
>> @@ -266,7 +265,12 @@ static void bcm_can_tx(struct bcm_op *op)
>> /* send with loopback */
>> skb->dev = dev;
>> skb->sk = op->sk;
>> - can_send(skb, 1);
>> +
>> + if (can_send(skb, 1)) {
>
> That's unusual coding style. In the kernel often an intermediate
> variable "ret" or "err" is used.
>
>> + struct bcm_sock *bo = bcm_sk(op->sk);
>> +
>> + bo->dropped_tx_msgs++;
>> + }
Hi Marc,
i think assignments inside if-statements are really bad.
As can_send() returns zero on success, i can't see why
ret = can_send(skb, 1);
if (ret) {
...
}
Should be better, as we would need to introduce ret before to meet only one
occurrence. That's not really an improvement ....
Regards,
Oliver
_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
