On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:35 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:58:08 +0200, John Kacur said:
>
>> My eyes fell upon this switch statement, probably I have similar
>> criticisms as to what has already been said, but:
>> 1. Surely the default case is also an -EINVAL
>> 2. Why not let all the EINVALS fall through, it will shorten up the
>> code, and IMO make it more readable, something like this?
>> + switch (fmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
>> + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM: /* Passing Case */
>> + break;
>> + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS: /* Failing Cases */
>> + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
>> + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFM:
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + printk(KERN_INFO "Unknown SND_SOC_DAIFMT kind\n");
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + break;
>> + }
>
> Even shorter, but puts the default in a non-standard place:
>
> + switch (fmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
> + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM: /* Passing Case */
> + break;
> + default: /* So much Fail we should say something */
> + printk(KERN_INFO "Unknown SND_SOC_DAIFMT kind\n");
> + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS: /* Failing Cases */
> + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
> + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFM:
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + break;
> + }
>
> (I see a checkpatch update to check where default: is, coming in 3.. 2.. 1.. :)
>
Well, of course you only want to make things shorter when it increases
clarity, you don't want to make things shorter for the sake of making
them shorter, so yeah, I would nix that non-standard default position
too.
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
