On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:14:52AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
>  /* Info for the block device */
>  struct block2mtd_dev {
> -	struct list_head list;
> -	struct block_device *blkdev;
> -	struct mtd_info mtd;
> -	struct mutex write_mutex;
> +	struct list_head	list;
> +	struct block_device	*blkdev;
> +	struct mtd_info		mtd;
> +	/* serializes writes with each other and also with erase: */
> +	struct mutex		write_mutex;
>  };

Why the hell?

quoted text
> -static int _block2mtd_write(struct block2mtd_dev *dev, const u_char *buf,
> -		loff_t to, size_t len, size_t *retlen)
> +static int
> +_block2mtd_write(struct block2mtd_dev *dev, const u_char *buf, loff_t to,
> +		 size_t len, size_t *retlen)

That's actually worse...  BTW, single-underscore-... for identifiers?  Odd.

quoted text
> -static int block2mtd_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len,
> +static int
> +block2mtd_write(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t to, size_t len,
>  		size_t *retlen, const u_char *buf)

Again, why split it that way?

quoted text
> -	dev->mtd.size = dev->blkdev->bd_inode->i_size & PAGE_MASK;
> -	dev->mtd.erasesize = erase_size;
> -	dev->mtd.writesize = 1;
> -	dev->mtd.type = MTD_RAM;
> -	dev->mtd.flags = MTD_CAP_RAM;
> -	dev->mtd.erase = block2mtd_erase;
> -	dev->mtd.write = block2mtd_write;
> -	dev->mtd.writev = default_mtd_writev;
> -	dev->mtd.sync = block2mtd_sync;
> -	dev->mtd.read = block2mtd_read;
> -	dev->mtd.priv = dev;
> -	dev->mtd.owner = THIS_MODULE;
> +	dev->mtd.size		= dev->blkdev->bd_inode->i_size & PAGE_MASK;
> +	dev->mtd.erasesize	= erase_size;
> +	dev->mtd.writesize	= 1;
> +	dev->mtd.type		= MTD_RAM;
> +	dev->mtd.flags		= MTD_CAP_RAM;
> +	dev->mtd.erase		= block2mtd_erase;
> +	dev->mtd.write		= block2mtd_write;
> +	dev->mtd.writev		= default_mtd_writev;
> +	dev->mtd.sync		= block2mtd_sync;
> +	dev->mtd.read		= block2mtd_read;
> +	dev->mtd.priv		= dev;
> +	dev->mtd.owner		= THIS_MODULE;

Bogus.

quoted text
> -		if (ret) {
> +		if (ret)
>  			parse_err("illegal erase size");
> -		}
>  	}

BTW, I certainly wouldn't inflict that on patches; at some point in
series the body of if may shrink to one line only to get longer in
the next patch.  Removing and restoring {} would only add noise.

OTOH, you've missed quite a few of my pet peeves, starting with
u_char in the quoted part...
--
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/