Re: [PATCH] staging: dgnc: Fix lines longer than 80 characters

[Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 11:11:23AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 10:56:54AM +0100, Fernando Apesteguia wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:51:13AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 08:13:49PM +0100, Fernando Apesteguia wrote:
> > > > For the first lines of the patch, I opted to create a small function
> > > > instead of breaking the the line in a weird way.
> > > > 
> > > > The other changes are simple ones.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Fernando Apesteguia <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > > > index af4bc86..835d448 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c
> > > > @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ static int dgnc_tty_write(struct tty_struct *tty, const unsigned char *buf,
> > > >  static void dgnc_tty_set_termios(struct tty_struct *tty,
> > > >  				 struct ktermios *old_termios);
> > > >  static void dgnc_tty_send_xchar(struct tty_struct *tty, char ch);
> > > > +static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line);
> > > >  
> > > >  static const struct tty_operations dgnc_tty_ops = {
> > > >  	.open = dgnc_tty_open,
> > > > @@ -786,6 +787,12 @@ void dgnc_check_queue_flow_control(struct channel_t *ch)
> > > >  	}
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static void dgnc_keep_line_low(struct channel_t *ch, const unsigned char line)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	ch->ch_mostat &= ~(line);
> > > > +	ch->ch_bd->bd_ops->assert_modem_signals(ch);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > Your name here is odd, it is named because of what it does to the coding
> > > style, not to the logic of what is happening in the function itself,
> > > making it very confusing.
> > 
> > It was a bad choice indeed :) but I didn't mean anything about the coding
> > style but about what the fuction does. It was meant to be read as:
> > "keep_signal_low" since the function puts (RTS/DTR) UART "line" to low.
> > 
> > Would "keep_signal_low" be clear and representative of what the function does?
> 
> It's not "keep", it is "change", right?  I don't remember the context
> now, sorry, you could be correct...

Yes, I think "change" or even "set" would be more appropriate. I'll rework the
patch and send it again.

Thanks.

> 
> 
> greg k-h