[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023082232-runaround-captive-aa7a@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 14:56:27 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Jiri Slaby (SUSE)" <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] tty: tty_buffer: initialize variables in
initializers already
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 12:55:29PM +0200, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) wrote:
> It makes the code both more compact, and more understandable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby (SUSE) <jirislaby@...nel.org>
> ---
> drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c | 13 +++----------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c b/drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c
> index 414bb7f9155f..44c0adaec850 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c
> @@ -262,17 +262,10 @@ static int __tty_buffer_request_room(struct tty_port *port, size_t size,
> bool flags)
> {
> struct tty_bufhead *buf = &port->buf;
> - struct tty_buffer *b, *n;
> - size_t left;
> - bool change;
> + struct tty_buffer *n, *b = buf->tail;
> + size_t left = (b->flags ? 1 : 2) * b->size - b->used;
That's understandable? Hah!
I'll take it, but ick, the original:
> + bool change = !b->flags && flags;
>
> - b = buf->tail;
> - if (!b->flags)
> - left = 2 * b->size - b->used;
> - else
> - left = b->size - b->used;
Is much more readable.
Well kind of, it's all a mess :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists