On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:33:36AM +0100, John Sheehan wrote:
quoted text
> Hi Charles,
> 
> 2010/6/16 Charles Clément <caratorn@gmail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 07:30:09PM +0100, John Sheehan wrote:
> >> From: John Sheehan <john.d.sheehan@gmail.com>
> >
> >> @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ TODO:
> >>    outb(flags, PCI9111_IO_BASE+PCI9111_REGISTER_TRIGGER_MODE_CONTROL)
> >>
> >>  #define pci9111_interrupt_and_fifo_get() \
> >> -  ((inb(PCI9111_IO_BASE+PCI9111_REGISTER_AD_MODE_INTERRUPT_READBACK) >> 4) &0x03)
> >> +  ((inb(PCI9111_IO_BASE+PCI9111_REGISTER_AD_MODE_INTERRUPT_READBACK) >> 4)&0x03)
> >
> > Doesn't checkpatch.pl suggest to add a whitespace after the & in that case?
> 
> no, surprisingly enough, it just requires the amount of whitespace at
> either side of the & to be consistent

Any specific reason to take this off the list?

quoted text
> 
> John
> > It would seem more readable.
> >
> > --
> > Charles Clément
> >
> >

-- 
Charles Clément

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel