staging: axis-fifo: Fix line over 80 characters error
PATCH 1/1 staging: axis-fifo: Fix line over 80 characters error
This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning:
WARNING: line over 80 characters
+ (write_timeout >= 0) ? msecs_to_jiffies(write_timeout) :
--- drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c +3 -3
@@ -482,10 +482,10 @@ static ssize_t axis_fifo_write(struct file *f, const char __user *buf,spin_lock_irq (&fifo->write_queue_lock); ret =wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout (fifo->write_queue, -ioread32 (fifo->base_addr +XLLF_TDFV_OFFSET ) +ioread32 (fifo->base_addr +XLLF_TDFV_OFFSET ) >= words_to_write, - fifo->write_queue_lock, - (write_timeout >=0 ) ?msecs_to_jiffies (write_timeout) : + fifo->write_queue_lock, + (write_timeout >=0 ) ?msecs_to_jiffies (write_timeout) :MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT );spin_unlock_irq (&fifo->write_queue_lock);
Signature · 1 line
2.19.1
Quoted 16 lines · Aleksa Zdravkovic
This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning:
WARNING: line over 80 characters
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c +1
-0+ (write_timeout >= 0) ? msecs_to_jiffies(write_timeout) :Signed-off-by Aleksa Zdravkovic <[email protected]>--- drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c +0
-0@@ -482,10 +482,10 @@ static ssize_t axis_fifo_write(struct file *f, const char __user *buf,spin_lock_irq (&fifo->write_queue_lock);
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c static ssize_t axis_fifo_write(struct file *f, const char __user *buf, · line 489
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c +3
-3ret =wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout (fifo->write_queue, -ioread32 (fifo->base_addr +XLLF_TDFV_OFFSET ) +ioread32 (fifo->base_addr +XLLF_TDFV_OFFSET ) >= words_to_write, - fifo->write_queue_lock, - (write_timeout >=0 ) ?msecs_to_jiffies (write_timeout) : + fifo->write_queue_lock, + (write_timeout >=0 ) ?msecs_to_jiffies (write_timeout) :MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT );
The original was fine. Just leave it.
Checkpatch.pl is only useful if it improves the readability for humans.
regards,
dan carpenter
Quoted 2 lines · Dan Carpenter
Quoted 1 line · Aleksa Zdravkovic
This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning:
[]
Quoted 1 line
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
Quoted 1 line
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c +0
-0
[]
Quoted 15 lines
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c static ssize_t axis_fifo_write(struct file *f, const char __user *buf, · line 489
Quoted 12 lines
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c +3
-3@@ -482,10 +482,10 @@ static ssize_t axis_fifo_write(struct file *f, const char __user *buf,spin_lock_irq (&fifo->write_queue_lock); ret =wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout (fifo->write_queue, -ioread32 (fifo->base_addr +XLLF_TDFV_OFFSET ) +ioread32 (fifo->base_addr +XLLF_TDFV_OFFSET ) >= words_to_write, - fifo->write_queue_lock, - (write_timeout >=0 ) ?msecs_to_jiffies (write_timeout) : + fifo->write_queue_lock, + (write_timeout >=0 ) ?msecs_to_jiffies (write_timeout) :MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT );The original was fine. Just leave it.
Quoted 1 line
Checkpatch.pl is only useful if it improves the readability for humans.
True, but I think the original is just OK.
Any suggestion on how to make the thing better?
wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout is a fairly long identifier with multiple long arguments.
It's as if it should be written here as
ret = wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout(fifo->write_queue,
ioread32(fifo->base_addr + XLLF_TDFV_OFFSET) >= words_to_write, fifo->write_queue_lock, write_timeout >= 0 ? msecs_to_jiffies(write_timeout) : MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
where the longest is way over 80 chars, (140?) but I simply don't care because it's just that much more readable for me.
Quoted 32 lines · Joe Perches
Quoted 2 lines · Dan Carpenter
Quoted 1 line · Aleksa Zdravkovic
This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning:
[]
Quoted 1 line
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c
Quoted 1 line
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c +0
-0[]
Quoted 15 lines
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c static ssize_t axis_fifo_write(struct file *f, const char __user *buf, · line 489
Quoted 12 lines
drivers/staging/axis-fifo/axis-fifo.c +3
-3@@ -482,10 +482,10 @@ static ssize_t axis_fifo_write(struct file *f, const char __user *buf,spin_lock_irq (&fifo->write_queue_lock); ret =wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout (fifo->write_queue, -ioread32 (fifo->base_addr +XLLF_TDFV_OFFSET ) +ioread32 (fifo->base_addr +XLLF_TDFV_OFFSET ) >= words_to_write, - fifo->write_queue_lock, - (write_timeout >=0 ) ?msecs_to_jiffies (write_timeout) : + fifo->write_queue_lock, + (write_timeout >=0 ) ?msecs_to_jiffies (write_timeout) :MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT );The original was fine. Just leave it.
Quoted 1 line
Checkpatch.pl is only useful if it improves the readability for humans.
True, but I think the original is just OK.
Any suggestion on how to make the thing better?
wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeoutis a fairly long identifier with multiple long arguments.It's as if it should be written here as
Quoted 9 lines
ret = wait_event_interruptible_lock_irq_timeout(fifo->write_queue,
ioread32(fifo->base_addr + XLLF_TDFV_OFFSET) >= words_to_write, fifo->write_queue_lock, write_timeout >= 0 ? msecs_to_jiffies(write_timeout) : MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);where the longest is way over 80 chars, (140?) but I simply don't care because it's just that much more readable for me.
Thank you Dan and Joe for your feedback.
I don't have any suggestion how to improve this code otherwise. I will try to find a way to improve it. Maybe we can define some macros but I don't think it would help much.