On Jan 14, 2008 8:13 PM, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:47:54 +0800,
> Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Minor style suggestion (same for class_find_child):
>
> > +struct device *class_find_device(struct class *class, void *data,
> > +                                int (*match)(struct device *, void *))
> > +{
> > +     struct device *dev;
> > +     int error = 1;
>
> How about using inverse logic here (e.g., start with int found = 0)...

Sounds good, will do. Thanks.

quoted text
>
> > +
> > +     if (!class)
> > +             return NULL;
> > +
> > +     down(&class->sem);
> > +     list_for_each_entry(dev, &class->devices, node) {
> > +             dev = get_device(dev);
> > +             if (dev) {
> > +                     if (match(dev, data)) {
> > +                             error = 0;
>
> ...and set found = 1 here...
>
> > +                             break;
> > +                     } else
> > +                             put_device(dev);
> > +             } else
> > +                     break;
> > +     }
> > +     up(&class->sem);
> > +
> > +     if (error)
> > +             return NULL;
> > +     return dev;
>
> ...and do
>         return found ? dev : NULL;
> in the end?
>
> Especially since not finding the device is not really an error.
>
> > +}
>
> Otherwise this looks fine to me.
>
--
unsubscribe notice
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/