> On 28. Feb 2022, at 12:24, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:08:17PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/at91_udc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/at91_udc.c
>> index 9040a0561466..0fd0307bc07b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/at91_udc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/at91_udc.c
>> @@ -150,13 +150,14 @@ static void proc_ep_show(struct seq_file *s, struct at91_ep *ep)
>> if (list_empty (&ep->queue))
>> seq_printf(s, "\t(queue empty)\n");
>>
>> - else list_for_each_entry (req, &ep->queue, queue) {
>> - unsigned length = req->req.actual;
>> + else
>> + list_for_each_entry(req, &ep->queue, queue) {
>> + unsigned int length = req->req.actual;
>>
>> - seq_printf(s, "\treq %p len %d/%d buf %p\n",
>> - &req->req, length,
>> - req->req.length, req->req.buf);
>> - }
>> + seq_printf(s, "\treq %p len %d/%d buf %p\n",
>> + &req->req, length,
>> + req->req.length, req->req.buf);
>> + }
>
> Don't make unrelated white space changes. It just makes the patch
> harder to review. As you're writing the patch make note of any
> additional changes and do them later in a separate patch.
>
> Also a multi-line indent gets curly braces for readability even though
> it's not required by C. And then both sides would get curly braces.
>
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&udc->lock, flags);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -226,7 +227,7 @@ static int proc_udc_show(struct seq_file *s, void *unused)
>>
>> if (udc->enabled && udc->vbus) {
>> proc_ep_show(s, &udc->ep[0]);
>> - list_for_each_entry (ep, &udc->gadget.ep_list, ep.ep_list) {
>> + list_for_each_entry(ep, &udc->gadget.ep_list, ep.ep_list) {
>
> Another unrelated change.
>
>> if (ep->ep.desc)
>> proc_ep_show(s, ep);
>> }
>
>
> [ snip ]
Thanks for pointing out, I'll remove the changes here and note them down
to send them separately.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2272.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2272.c
>> index 7c38057dcb4a..bb59200f1596 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2272.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2272.c
>> @@ -926,7 +926,8 @@ static int
>> net2272_dequeue(struct usb_ep *_ep, struct usb_request *_req)
>> {
>> struct net2272_ep *ep;
>> - struct net2272_request *req;
>> + struct net2272_request *req = NULL;
>> + struct net2272_request *tmp;
>> unsigned long flags;
>> int stopped;
>>
>> @@ -939,11 +940,13 @@ net2272_dequeue(struct usb_ep *_ep, struct usb_request *_req)
>> ep->stopped = 1;
>>
>> /* make sure it's still queued on this endpoint */
>> - list_for_each_entry(req, &ep->queue, queue) {
>> - if (&req->req == _req)
>> + list_for_each_entry(tmp, &ep->queue, queue) {
>> + if (&tmp->req == _req) {
>> + req = tmp;
>> break;
>> + }
>> }
>> - if (&req->req != _req) {
>> + if (!req) {
>> ep->stopped = stopped;
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ep->dev->lock, flags);
>> return -EINVAL;
>> @@ -954,7 +957,6 @@ net2272_dequeue(struct usb_ep *_ep, struct usb_request *_req)
>> dev_dbg(ep->dev->dev, "unlink (%s) pio\n", _ep->name);
>> net2272_done(ep, req, -ECONNRESET);
>> }
>> - req = NULL;
>
> Another unrelated change. These are all good changes but send them as
> separate patches.
You are referring to the req = NULL, right?
I've changed the use of 'req' in the same function and assumed that I can
just remove the unnecessary statement. But if it's better to do separately
I'll do that.
>
>> ep->stopped = stopped;
>>
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ep->dev->lock, flags);
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
thanks,
Jakob Koschel
