On 25.07.2011 09:11, Li Zefan wrote: >> + spin_lock(&sdev->stat_lock); >> + ++sdev->stat.read_errors; >> + spin_unlock(&sdev->stat_lock); > > Normally we write "i++" instead of "++i" if the return value is > ignored. Checkpatch didn't say so, it can't be too wrong. For the next time I can do it the other way round if it makes people happier. -Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
