Messages in this thread | | | From | Coiby Xu <> | Date | Sat, 3 Jul 2021 07:56:29 +0800 | Subject | Re: [RFC 13/19] staging: qlge: rewrite do while loop as for loop in qlge_sem_spinlock |
| |
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 09:35:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >On Thu, 2021-07-01 at 07:33 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 03:58:06AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> > On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 19:22 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: >> > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:20:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: >> > > > > Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while >> > > > > loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY. >> > [] >> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c >> > [] >> > I also think using UDELAY_DELAY is silly and essentially misleading >> > as it's also used as an argument value for mdelay >> > >> > $ git grep -w UDELAY_DELAY >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h:#define UDELAY_DELAY 100 >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); /* 100ms */ >> >> Thanks for spotting this issue! How about "#define MDELAY_DELAY 100" for >> mdelay? > >I think the define is pointless and it'd be more readable >to just use 100 in all the cases. > >IMO: There really aren't enough cases to justify using defines.
I thought magic number should be avoided if possible. This case is new to me. Thanks for the explanation!
> >
-- Best regards, Coiby
| |