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.. :)
Attachment:
pgpfpIdN8yp6E.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
