On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:21:10PM -0500, Mike Murphy wrote:

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Frederic Weisbecker [off-list ref] wrote:
...

quoted

quoted

+static ssize_t xpad_store_rumble_enable(struct device *dev,
+             struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t count)
+{
+     struct usb_xpad *xpad = to_xpad(dev);
+     int newrumble = xpad->rumble_enable;
+     if (1 == sscanf(buf, "%d", &newrumble))

Oh, that's not wrong but it looks weird, usually, a code reader would
expect to see if (sscanf(...) == 1)

Oops... I changed some stuff around (deleted an unneeded variable) and
didn't change the test form back.

The "backwards" expression is a trick that some of us teach when
teaching C, for the specific case of comparing a variable to a
constant. It allows the compiler to check for an unintentional "="
where a "==" was desired. (foo = 4) is not an error or a warning

Yes it is, on modern versions of gcc.

thanks,

greg k-h