Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:55:17 +0100
From: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: fixup return type of
	wait_for_completion_timeout
Message-ID: <20150210155517.GB1883@opentech.at>
References: <1423557576-18984-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> <20150210145341.GJ3220@htj.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150210145341.GJ3220@htj.duckdns.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1072
Lines: 32

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@cogentembedded.com> 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.

thx!
hofrat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/