Re: [PATCH] libata: fixup return type of wait_for_completion_timeout

From: Nicholas Mc Guire
Date: Tue Feb 10 2015 - 10:55:25 EST

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Tejun Heo wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:39:36AM -0500, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > - if (!rc) {
> > + if (irq_timeout == 0) {
> Why == 0 tho? This always bothers me. To match this style, we'd use
> != 0 to test the other direction. In what way is "if (ret != 0)"
> better than "if (ret)"? We're negating the two tests needlessly.
The == 0 seemed better to me than ! here because it would read

if (not irq_timeout) {

while it actually did time out - but this could be resolved by renaming
irq_timeout to time_left (as was suggested by Sergei Shtylyov
<sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> for a similar patch) and then it
would read:

if (time_left == 0) {

which would nicely describe the timeout state.

if that addresses your concerns then I'll fix it up and repost.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at