Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8187se: r8180_core.c: Fix coding style issue

[Andrew Miller]

Thanks, you help me alot

If you don't mind me asking a few more question.

Would fixing things like this

- if(x==y)
+ if(x == y)

be worthless? 
Changing c++ style comment to c style? 
And I should not wory about line being longer the 80 charactor, unless they are
just extremely long?

I'm just over half way through my CS degree, so I'm a complete noob. I'm still learning what is
not worth spending time on and what is.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:12:26PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 21:49 -0400, Andrew Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:33:56PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 20:58 -0400, Andrew Miller wrote:
> > > > Fix long line coding style issue
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Miller <amiller@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Please strive for clarity instead of just fixing
> > > random 80 char warnings.
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8187se/r8180_core.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8187se/r8180_core.c
> > > []
> > > > @@ -1607,17 +1609,20 @@ void rtl8180_rx(struct net_device *dev)
> > > >  		/* printk("==========================>rx : RXAGC is %d,signalstrength is %d\n",RXAGC,stats.signalstrength); */
> > > >  		stats.rssi = priv->wstats.qual.qual = priv->SignalQuality;
> > > >  		stats.noise = priv->wstats.qual.noise = 100 - priv->wstats.qual.qual;
> > > > -		bHwError = (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x00000fff)) == 4080) | (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x04000000)) != 0)
> > > > -			| (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x08000000)) != 0) | (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x10000000)) != 0) | (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x20000000)) != 0);
> > > > +		bHwError = (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x00000fff)) == 4080) |
> > > > +			   (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x04000000)) != 0) |
> > > > +			   (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x08000000)) != 0) |
> > > > +			   (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x10000000)) != 0) |
> > > > +			   (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x20000000)) != 0);
> > > Likely these | uses should be ||
> > I'm not really sure what you mean, do you mean I should change '|' to '||"?
> > like this
> >            bHwError = (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x00000fff)) == 4080) ||
> >                       (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x04000000)) != 0) ||
> >                       (((*(priv->rxringtail)) & (0x08000000)) != 0) ||
> >                       (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x10000000)) != 0) ||
> >                       (((~(*(priv->rxringtail))) & (0x20000000)) != 0);
> 
> Yes.
> 
> If this bit of code is especially performance sensitive,
> there are times when using | instead of || can be an
> overall speed improvement.  I haven't looked at this
> code before so I don't know what's appropriate here but
> using || might be more sensible though possibly slower.
> 
> > > It might be better to reshuffle the test order too:
> > > 			if (IEEE80211_FTYPE_CTL != type &&
> > > 			   !bHwError && bCRC && !bICV &&
> > > 			    eqMacAddr(priv->ieee80211->current_network.bssid,
> > > 				      fc & IEEE80211_FCTL_TODS ? hdr->addr1 :
> > > 				      fc & IEEE80211_FCTL_FROMDS ? hdr->addr2 :
> > > 				      hdr->addr3))
> > > etc...
> > That does look much cleaner, It never occurred to me that I can do that.
> 
> Feel empowered to make the code better.  Do what's right.
> Don't just correct mindless checkpatch error messages.
> 
> cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/