Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Hi Jiri, > > Em Seg, 2007-10-08 às 13:41 +0100, Jiri Slaby escreveu: > >> cinergyT2, remove bad usage of ERESTARTSYS >> >> test of cinergyt2->disconnect_pending doesn't ensure pending signal and so >> ERESTARTSYS would reach userspace, which is not permitted. Change it to >> EAGAIN >> >> > > checkpatch.pl is complaining about your changeset: > > do not use assignment in if condition > #82: FILE: drivers/media/dvb/cinergyT2/cinergyT2.c:492: > + if ((err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&cinergyt2->wq_sem))) > > do not use assignment in if condition > #86: FILE: drivers/media/dvb/cinergyT2/cinergyT2.c:495: > + if ((err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&cinergyt2->sem))) > > do not use assignment in if condition > #133: FILE: drivers/media/dvb/cinergyT2/cinergyT2.c:1036: > + if ((err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&cinergyt2->wq_sem))) > > do not use assignment in if condition > #137: FILE: drivers/media/dvb/cinergyT2/cinergyT2.c:1039: > + if ((err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&cinergyt2->sem)))
Is this illegal as per kernel codingstyle? I could understand if we may want to avoid this sort of thing for the sake of code readability, but this seems 100% proper to me, especially considering that we're simply trying to catch an error return code. One of the things that I really enjoy about the c programming language is the fact that you can string many operations together into a single statement through the use of logic. I hate the thought of a patch being nacked because of the above. :-/ If this is indeed kernel codingstyle, then IMHO, we should let it slide for catching error return codes. Regards, Mike Krufky - 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/
