[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:38:31 +0100
From: Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>
To: Felipe Ferreri Tonello <eu@...ipetonello.com>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] usb: gadget: f_midi: refactor state machine
Felipe Ferreri Tonello wrote:
> On 02/03/16 21:09, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
>> Felipe F. Tonello wrote:
>>> This refactor results in a cleaner state machine code
>>
>> It increases the number of states, and now juggles two state variables.
>> I cannot agree to it being cleaner.
>
> Yes, it increases the number of states. That was done in order to
> actually implement a proper finite state machine with one state at a
> time and a transition state.
I know, "clean" is subjective. But in what way was the old state
machine not "proper"?
And how is handling two states (port->state and next_state) cleaner?
As far as I can tell, the requirement for a separate variable comes not
from any inherent complexity of the state machine itself, but only
because the transmit_packet function was inlined.
Regards,
Clemens
Powered by blists - more mailing lists