Hi Vinod,

On 3/13/2016 11:59 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:

I would write this as:

memcpy(lldev->tre_ring + lldev->tre_write_offset,
		&tre->tre_local[0], TRE_SIZE);

To make it look more readable

Got it.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+	lldev->tx_status_list[tre->idx].err_code = 0;
+	lldev->tx_status_list[tre->idx].err_info = 0;
+	tre->queued = 1;
+	lldev->pending_tre_count++;

Is this the only one without alignment? I couldn't understand what you mean by 
above one?

quoting Coding Style:

Statements longer than 80 columns will be broken into sensible chunks, unless
exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does not hide
information. 

quoted

quoted

"Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and
are placed substantially to the right."

Sorry for my poor English. I never got this rule. 

Which one is a "substantially" right? Can you give me an example?

I need to understand how you'd write this to satisfy the above rule.

like this:

memcpy(lldev->tre_ring + lldev->tre_write_offset, &tre->tre_local[0],
       TRE_SIZE);

No

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

or

memcpy(lldev->tre_ring + lldev->tre_write_offset,
       &tre->tre_local[0], TRE_SIZE);

Better or above

I'll do this to be consistent with the rest of the code. 

Please let me know when you want to have the updated version. I don't want to post v16
while you are reviewing the rest of the code.

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project