On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 16:37:28 +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > > On 04/09/2016 11:51 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 11:16:59 +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > >> On 04/09/2016 10:52 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > >>> Just for checking count=0 and count=1, we need no loop to count > >>> beforehand. > >>> if (info->control != control && > >>> (list != mixer->id_elems[unit] || > >>> list->list_next_id_elem)) > >>> continue; > >>> > >>> But, this doesn't look better and is more harder to understand, so I'm > >>> not willing to sell it :) > >> > >> I had something like that before but opted for the more readable > >> version. But you're right. I'll add a comment and do it your way. > > > > Oh no, sorry, I wasn't clear: I meant that my version is worse in the > > end, and I prefer your first version, just for simplicity. > > Ah ok :) Well, ultimately up to you; you have both versions, and the two > patches should apply independently anyway. > > Or I can resend both if you prefer that. Don't worry, I picked the preferred patches now (v2 for patch 1 and v1 for patch 2). thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
