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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1484263 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test

Started byGreg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
First post2016-09-15 17:00 +0200
Last post2016-09-16 13:30 +0200
Articles 4 — 4 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant  on the right side of the test Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-09-15 17:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant  on the right side of the test Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant  on the right side of the test Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2016-09-15 19:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant  on the right side of the test Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> - 2016-09-16 13:30 +0200

#1484263 — Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test

FromGreg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date2016-09-15 17:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Comparisons should place the constant on the right side of the test
Message-ID<shGiR-8jb-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:29:54PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
> index 9a5cd63..551e3064 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
> @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ int switch_ssc_clock(struct rtsx_chip *chip, int clk)
>  	dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "Switch SSC clock to %dMHz (cur_clk = %d)\n",
>  		clk, chip->cur_clk);
>  
> -	if ((clk <= 2) || (N > max_N)) {
> +	if ((clk <= 2) || (max_N < N)) {

Where is the constant?

The original code looks fine to me...

Also, I can't take patches where there is no changelog text, sorry.

greg k-h

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1484427

FromSergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>
Date2016-09-15 19:30 +0200
Message-ID<shIE2-1vO-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1484263
That's true. It seems that checkpatch script is getting a false 
positive. Just trying to do checkpatch happy. Sorry for inconvenience.

I'll be careful with Changelog stuff from now. Thanks for advice.

Cheers,
	Sergio Paracuellos

El 2016年09月15日 a las 16:51, Greg KH escribió:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:29:54PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
>> index 9a5cd63..551e3064 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/rtsx_card.c
>> @@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ int switch_ssc_clock(struct rtsx_chip *chip, int clk)
>>   	dev_dbg(rtsx_dev(chip), "Switch SSC clock to %dMHz (cur_clk = %d)\n",
>>   		clk, chip->cur_clk);
>>
>> -	if ((clk <= 2) || (N > max_N)) {
>> +	if ((clk <= 2) || (max_N < N)) {
>
> Where is the constant?
>
> The original code looks fine to me...
>
> Also, I can't take patches where there is no changelog text, sorry.
>
> greg k-h
>

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


#1484434

FromJoe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date2016-09-15 19:40 +0200
Message-ID<shINH-1zt-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1484427
On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 19:22 +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> That's true. It seems that checkpatch script is getting a false 
> positive. Just trying to do checkpatch happy. Sorry for inconvenience.

Keeping the style consistent instead of taking the simplest path
to quiet the checkpatch messages is better.

Making N, min_N, max_N all lower case would be better.

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


#1484900

FromDan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Date2016-09-16 13:30 +0200
Message-ID<shZvg-40T-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1484427
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 07:22:40PM +0200, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> That's true. It seems that checkpatch script is getting a false
> positive. Just trying to do checkpatch happy.

Also the old code was better than new code so leave it alone.

regards,
dan carpenter

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web