Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] staging/rtl8192u: fix coding style problems

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 16:08 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:35:42AM +0530, Devendra Naga wrote:
> > fixed some of the coding style problems reported by checkpatch
[]
> > @@ -66,11 +69,10 @@ short eprom_r(struct net_device *dev)
> >  {
> >  	short bit;
> >  
> > -	bit=(read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT) );
> > +	bit = (read_nic_byte_E(dev, EPROM_CMD) & (1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT));
> >  	udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
> >  
> > -	if(bit) return 1;
> > -	return 0;
> > +	return !!bit;
> 
> Oh come on, really?  !! is more "clear" here?

Depends on the reader.  !! is pretty common.

> No, please be painfully obvious, that's the only way to write kernel
> code.  Not like this.

I'd just make the return a bool instead.

Also, there are unnecessary parens that could
be removed to make the code clearer.

(1<<EPROM_R_SHIFT), (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) and
(1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) could be new #defines too.