Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1535156 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] staging: dgnc: Fix lines longer than 80 characters

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] staging: dgnc: Fix lines longer than 80 characters Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 20:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] staging: dgnc: Fix lines longer than 80 characters Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-12-03 10:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] staging: dgnc: Fix lines longer than 80 characters Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-12-03 11:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] staging: dgnc: Fix lines longer than 80 characters Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 20:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] staging: dgnc: Fix lines longer than 80 characters Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 11:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] staging: dgnc: Fix lines longer than 80 characters Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2016-12-05 22:00 +0100

#1535156 — [PATCH] staging: dgnc: Fix lines longer than 80 characters

For the first lines of the patch, I opted to create a small function
instead of breaking the the line in a weird way.

The other changes are simple ones.

Signed-off-by: Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
index af4bc86..835d448 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
@@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ static int dgnc_tty_write(struct tty_struct *tty, const unsigned char *buf,
 static void dgnc_tty_set_termios(struct tty_struct *tty,
 				 struct ktermios *old_termios);
 static void dgnc_tty_send_xchar(struct tty_struct *tty, char ch);
+static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line);
 
 static const struct tty_operations dgnc_tty_ops = {
 	.open = dgnc_tty_open,
@@ -786,6 +787,12 @@ void dgnc_check_queue_flow_control(struct channel_t *ch)
 	}
 }
 
+static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line)
+{
+	ch->ch_mostat &= ~(line);
+	ch->ch_bd->bd_ops->assert_modem_signals(ch);
+}
+
 void dgnc_wakeup_writes(struct channel_t *ch)
 {
 	int qlen = 0;
@@ -823,19 +830,15 @@ void dgnc_wakeup_writes(struct channel_t *ch)
 				 * If RTS Toggle mode is on, whenever
 				 * the queue and UART is empty, keep RTS low.
 				 */
-				if (ch->ch_digi.digi_flags & DIGI_RTS_TOGGLE) {
-					ch->ch_mostat &= ~(UART_MCR_RTS);
-					ch->ch_bd->bd_ops->assert_modem_signals(ch);
-				}
+				if (ch->ch_digi.digi_flags & DIGI_RTS_TOGGLE)
+					dgnc_keep_line_low(ch, UART_MCR_RTS);
 
 				/*
 				 * If DTR Toggle mode is on, whenever
 				 * the queue and UART is empty, keep DTR low.
 				 */
-				if (ch->ch_digi.digi_flags & DIGI_DTR_TOGGLE) {
-					ch->ch_mostat &= ~(UART_MCR_DTR);
-					ch->ch_bd->bd_ops->assert_modem_signals(ch);
-				}
+				if (ch->ch_digi.digi_flags & DIGI_DTR_TOGGLE)
+					dgnc_keep_line_low(ch, UART_MCR_DTR);
 			}
 		}
 
@@ -969,8 +972,9 @@ static int dgnc_tty_open(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *file)
 	 * touched safely, the close routine will signal the
 	 * ch_flags_wait to wake us back up.
 	 */
-	rc = wait_event_interruptible(ch->ch_flags_wait, (((ch->ch_tun.un_flags |
-				      ch->ch_pun.un_flags) & UN_CLOSING) == 0));
+	rc = wait_event_interruptible(ch->ch_flags_wait,
+			(((ch->ch_tun.un_flags |
+			   ch->ch_pun.un_flags) & UN_CLOSING) == 0));
 
 	/* If ret is non-zero, user ctrl-c'ed us */
 	if (rc)
@@ -1188,11 +1192,12 @@ static int dgnc_block_til_ready(struct tty_struct *tty,
 		 */
 		if (sleep_on_un_flags)
 			retval = wait_event_interruptible
-				(un->un_flags_wait, (old_flags != (ch->ch_tun.un_flags |
-								   ch->ch_pun.un_flags)));
+				(un->un_flags_wait,
+				 (old_flags != (ch->ch_tun.un_flags |
+						ch->ch_pun.un_flags)));
 		else
 			retval = wait_event_interruptible(ch->ch_flags_wait,
-							  (old_flags != ch->ch_flags));
+					(old_flags != ch->ch_flags));
 
 		/*
 		 * We got woken up for some reason.
@@ -2511,13 +2516,15 @@ static int dgnc_tty_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned int cmd,
 				if (ch->ch_tun.un_flags & (UN_LOW | UN_EMPTY)) {
 					ch->ch_tun.un_flags &=
 						~(UN_LOW | UN_EMPTY);
-					wake_up_interruptible(&ch->ch_tun.un_flags_wait);
+					wake_up_interruptible(&ch->ch_tun
+							.un_flags_wait);
 				}
 
 				if (ch->ch_pun.un_flags & (UN_LOW | UN_EMPTY)) {
 					ch->ch_pun.un_flags &=
 						~(UN_LOW | UN_EMPTY);
-					wake_up_interruptible(&ch->ch_pun.un_flags_wait);
+					wake_up_interruptible(&ch->ch_pun
+							.un_flags_wait);
 				}
 			}
 		}
@@ -2737,7 +2744,10 @@ static int dgnc_tty_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned int cmd,
 		buf.rxbuf = (ch->ch_r_head - ch->ch_r_tail) & RQUEUEMASK;
 		buf.txbuf = (ch->ch_w_head - ch->ch_w_tail) & WQUEUEMASK;
 
-		/* Is the UART empty? Add that value to whats in our TX queue. */
+		/*
+		 * Is the UART empty?
+		 * Add that value to whats in our TX queue.
+		 */
 
 		count = buf.txbuf + ch_bd_ops->get_uart_bytes_left(ch);
 
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1535355

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 08:13:49PM +0100, Fernando Apesteguia wrote:
> For the first lines of the patch, I opted to create a small function
> instead of breaking the the line in a weird way.
> 
> The other changes are simple ones.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> index af4bc86..835d448 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ static int dgnc_tty_write(struct tty_struct *tty, const unsigned char *buf,
>  static void dgnc_tty_set_termios(struct tty_struct *tty,
>  				 struct ktermios *old_termios);
>  static void dgnc_tty_send_xchar(struct tty_struct *tty, char ch);
> +static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line);
>  
>  static const struct tty_operations dgnc_tty_ops = {
>  	.open = dgnc_tty_open,
> @@ -786,6 +787,12 @@ void dgnc_check_queue_flow_control(struct channel_t *ch)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line)
> +{
> +	ch->ch_mostat &= ~(line);
> +	ch->ch_bd->bd_ops->assert_modem_signals(ch);
> +}

Your name here is odd, it is named because of what it does to the coding
style, not to the logic of what is happening in the function itself,
making it very confusing.

Yes, naming is hard, one of the hardest things in programming.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1535362

On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 10:56:54AM +0100, Fernando Apesteguia wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:51:13AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 08:13:49PM +0100, Fernando Apesteguia wrote:
> > > For the first lines of the patch, I opted to create a small function
> > > instead of breaking the the line in a weird way.
> > > 
> > > The other changes are simple ones.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > > index af4bc86..835d448 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > > @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ static int dgnc_tty_write(struct tty_struct *tty, const unsigned char *buf,
> > >  static void dgnc_tty_set_termios(struct tty_struct *tty,
> > >  				 struct ktermios *old_termios);
> > >  static void dgnc_tty_send_xchar(struct tty_struct *tty, char ch);
> > > +static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line);
> > >  
> > >  static const struct tty_operations dgnc_tty_ops = {
> > >  	.open = dgnc_tty_open,
> > > @@ -786,6 +787,12 @@ void dgnc_check_queue_flow_control(struct channel_t *ch)
> > >  	}
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line)
> > > +{
> > > +	ch->ch_mostat &= ~(line);
> > > +	ch->ch_bd->bd_ops->assert_modem_signals(ch);
> > > +}
> > 
> > Your name here is odd, it is named because of what it does to the coding
> > style, not to the logic of what is happening in the function itself,
> > making it very confusing.
> 
> It was a bad choice indeed :) but I didn't mean anything about the coding
> style but about what the fuction does. It was meant to be read as:
> "keep_signal_low" since the function puts (RTS/DTR) UART "line" to low.
> 
> Would "keep_signal_low" be clear and representative of what the function does?

It's not "keep", it is "change", right?  I don't remember the context
now, sorry, you could be correct...


greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1535702

On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 11:11:23AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 10:56:54AM +0100, Fernando Apesteguia wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:51:13AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 08:13:49PM +0100, Fernando Apesteguia wrote:
> > > > For the first lines of the patch, I opted to create a small function
> > > > instead of breaking the the line in a weird way.
> > > > 
> > > > The other changes are simple ones.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > > > index af4bc86..835d448 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > > > @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ static int dgnc_tty_write(struct tty_struct *tty, const unsigned char *buf,
> > > >  static void dgnc_tty_set_termios(struct tty_struct *tty,
> > > >  				 struct ktermios *old_termios);
> > > >  static void dgnc_tty_send_xchar(struct tty_struct *tty, char ch);
> > > > +static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line);
> > > >  
> > > >  static const struct tty_operations dgnc_tty_ops = {
> > > >  	.open = dgnc_tty_open,
> > > > @@ -786,6 +787,12 @@ void dgnc_check_queue_flow_control(struct channel_t *ch)
> > > >  	}
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	ch->ch_mostat &= ~(line);
> > > > +	ch->ch_bd->bd_ops->assert_modem_signals(ch);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > Your name here is odd, it is named because of what it does to the coding
> > > style, not to the logic of what is happening in the function itself,
> > > making it very confusing.
> > 
> > It was a bad choice indeed :) but I didn't mean anything about the coding
> > style but about what the fuction does. It was meant to be read as:
> > "keep_signal_low" since the function puts (RTS/DTR) UART "line" to low.
> > 
> > Would "keep_signal_low" be clear and representative of what the function does?
> 
> It's not "keep", it is "change", right?  I don't remember the context
> now, sorry, you could be correct...

Yes, I think "change" or even "set" would be more appropriate. I'll rework the
patch and send it again.

Thanks.

> 
> 
> greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1535364

On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:51:13AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 08:13:49PM +0100, Fernando Apesteguia wrote:
> > For the first lines of the patch, I opted to create a small function
> > instead of breaking the the line in a weird way.
> > 
> > The other changes are simple ones.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > index af4bc86..835d448 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ static int dgnc_tty_write(struct tty_struct *tty, const unsigned char *buf,
> >  static void dgnc_tty_set_termios(struct tty_struct *tty,
> >  				 struct ktermios *old_termios);
> >  static void dgnc_tty_send_xchar(struct tty_struct *tty, char ch);
> > +static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line);
> >  
> >  static const struct tty_operations dgnc_tty_ops = {
> >  	.open = dgnc_tty_open,
> > @@ -786,6 +787,12 @@ void dgnc_check_queue_flow_control(struct channel_t *ch)
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line)
> > +{
> > +	ch->ch_mostat &= ~(line);
> > +	ch->ch_bd->bd_ops->assert_modem_signals(ch);
> > +}
> 
> Your name here is odd, it is named because of what it does to the coding
> style, not to the logic of what is happening in the function itself,
> making it very confusing.

It was a bad choice indeed :) but I didn't mean anything about the coding
style but about what the fuction does. It was meant to be read as:
"keep_signal_low" since the function puts (RTS/DTR) UART "line" to low.

Would "keep_signal_low" be clear and representative of what the function does?


> 
> Yes, naming is hard, one of the hardest things in programming.

Indeed!

Thanks!

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1536404

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 08:13:49PM +0100, Fernando Apesteguia wrote:
> For the first lines of the patch, I opted to create a small function
> instead of breaking the the line in a weird way.

These first ones are the nice.

> @@ -2511,13 +2516,15 @@ static int dgnc_tty_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned int cmd,
>  				if (ch->ch_tun.un_flags & (UN_LOW | UN_EMPTY)) {
>  					ch->ch_tun.un_flags &=
>  						~(UN_LOW | UN_EMPTY);
> -					wake_up_interruptible(&ch->ch_tun.un_flags_wait);
> +					wake_up_interruptible(&ch->ch_tun
> +							.un_flags_wait);


Ugh...  No.  Don't do this.  Just let it go over 80 characters.  Ignore
the warning.

regards,
dan carpenter

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web