Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752762Ab2BTKpe (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:45:34 -0500 Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:46257 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752594Ab2BTKpd (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:45:33 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleaning up code formatting errors in net/wireless pointed out by checkpatch. From: Johannes Berg To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Joe Perches , Luis Felipe Strano Moraes , linville@tuxdriver.com, davem@davemloft.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20120217110602.2c4e762a@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <1329492603-3972-1-git-send-email-lfelipe@profusion.mobi> <1329504344.584.18.camel@joe2Laptop> <20120217110602.2c4e762a@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:45:22 +0100 Message-ID: <1329734722.3458.7.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1516 Lines: 41 On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 11:06 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > I'd try to make the statement expression visually > > distinct. Something like: > > > > wait_event(rdev->dev_wait, > > ({ > > int __count; > > mutex_lock(&rdev->devlist_mtx); > > __count = rdev->opencount; > > mutex_unlock(&rdev->devlist_mtx); > > __count == 0; > > }) > > ); > > > > I prefer to see this done as an inline function > > wait_event(rdev->dev_wait, is_foo_ready(rdev)) > > Also, in this case wrapping a condition with a mutex really is > meaningless because the state is longer protected out side the > protected region; in other words the mutex here is bogus and > provides no additional protection. I don't really care about all the changes suggested here -- feel free to make them. One thing I'd like to point out though is that generally the mutex might serve a purpose even here. In this specific case, it currently doesn't, but I still think it's safer to keep it in case somebody modifies other code. The case where it matters is when the modification of the "opencount" variable isn't the last thing that happens in a locked section, but you here want or need to wait for everything happening in that section to be done. johannes -- 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/