Re: [PATCH] ioat: fail self-test if wait_for_completion times out

[Nicholas Mc Guire]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015, Prarit Bhargava wrote:

> 
> 
> On 01/06/2015 10:38 AM, Jiang, Dave wrote:
> >>>> -	if (dma->device_tx_status(dma_chan, cookie, NULL) != DMA_COMPLETE) {
> >>>> +	if (tmo == 0 || dma->device_tx_status(dma_chan, cookie, NULL)
> >>>> +			!= DMA_COMPLETE) {
> >>>
> >>> Can you please do: 
> >>> +	if (tmo == 0 ||
> >>> +	    dma->device_tx_status(dma_chan, cookie, NULL) != DMA_COMPLETE) {
> >>
> >> Documentation/CodingStyle:Chapter 2
> >>
> >> "Statements longer than 80 columns will be broken into sensible chunks, unless
> >> exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does not hide
> >> information. Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and
> >> are placed substantially to the right. The same applies to function headers..."
> >>
> >> am I misreading the CodingStyle here ?
> > 
> > I'm not sure what the issue is here.... What I proposed is still the
> > same length as the original code. And what I suggested complies with the
> > existing coding style that's already there.
> 
> Ugh ... I missed this obvious CodingStyle error.
> 
> What Dave is trying to say is that he (and I'm pretty sure everyone else
> for that matter) disagree with you style change because you have not broken
> the columns into "sensible chunks".
> 
> IOW ... this,
> 
> 	if (tmo == 0 ||
> 	    dma->device_tx_status(dma_chan, cookie, NULL) != DMA_COMPLETE) {
> 
> is much easier to comprehend than this,
> 
> 	if (tmo == 0 || dma->device_tx_status(dma_chan, cookie, NULL)
> 			!= DMA_COMPLETE) {
>
agreed - it was just not clear to me how strict things should
be applied - e.g. the indentation with spaces - will cleanup and
resend.

thx!
hofrat 
--
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/