[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190523165157.GA19908@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 18:51:57 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.linux@...il.com>
Cc: christian.gromm@...rochip.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: most: usb: Remove variable frame_size
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 06:53:34PM +0530, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
> Remove variable frame_size as its multiple usages are all independent of
> each other and so can be returned separately.
> Issue found with Coccinelle.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.linux@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/most/usb/usb.c | 16 ++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/usb/usb.c b/drivers/staging/most/usb/usb.c
> index 360cb5b7a10b..751e82cf66c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/most/usb/usb.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/most/usb/usb.c
> @@ -186,32 +186,28 @@ static inline int start_sync_ep(struct usb_device *usb_dev, u16 ep)
> */
> static unsigned int get_stream_frame_size(struct most_channel_config *cfg)
> {
> - unsigned int frame_size = 0;
> unsigned int sub_size = cfg->subbuffer_size;
>
> if (!sub_size) {
> pr_warn("Misconfig: Subbuffer size zero.\n");
> - return frame_size;
> + return 0;
> }
> switch (cfg->data_type) {
> case MOST_CH_ISOC:
> - frame_size = AV_PACKETS_PER_XACT * sub_size;
> - break;
> + return AV_PACKETS_PER_XACT * sub_size;
> case MOST_CH_SYNC:
> if (cfg->packets_per_xact == 0) {
> pr_warn("Misconfig: Packets per XACT zero\n");
> - frame_size = 0;
> + return 0;
> } else if (cfg->packets_per_xact == 0xFF) {
> - frame_size = (USB_MTU / sub_size) * sub_size;
> + return (USB_MTU / sub_size) * sub_size;
> } else {
> - frame_size = cfg->packets_per_xact * sub_size;
> + return cfg->packets_per_xact * sub_size;
> }
> - break;
> default:
> pr_warn("Query frame size of non-streaming channel\n");
> - break;
> + return 0;
> }
> - return frame_size;
> }
Now it just feels like you are doing "busy work" :(
frame_size makes sense here, right? Why change this code?
Remember, code is written for developers first, the compiler second.
Reading this with frame_size makes it much more obvious what this code
does when you read it again in 5-10 years. Why change this, you have
not made it faster, or smaller at all.
So no, I would not accept this, sorry.
We have so many _real_ things to do in the drivers/staging/ directory if
you are looking for stuff to clean up. Don't try to micro-optimize
things that do not matter at the expense of understanding.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists