+ /* make sure count is <= avail */
+ count = avail > count ? count : avail;
min()?
I tried to use min() but then Sparse started complaining so went back to an
explicit test+assign.
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but we've found so many improvements
with the tools that I tend to favor warning-free code.
Why was sparse complaining - was it spotting something that is an actual
issue here and you've just masked the warning?
It was about the use of typeof/sizeof() in min(), not an actual issue in
the code
sound/soc/sof/trace.c:90:17: warning: expression using sizeof(void)
sound/soc/sof/trace.c:90:17: warning: expression using sizeof(void)
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
