On Jan 14, 2008 8:13 PM, Cornelia Huck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:47:54 +0800,
> Dave Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
> > +
> > + 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.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
