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

[Sergei Shtylyov]

On 02/10/2015 06:55 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire 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) {

   No, 'irq_timeout  == 0' isn't really better.

> 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.

   '!time_left' also would.

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

> thx!
> hofrat

MBR, Sergei

--
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/