On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:01:25PM -0300, Ezequiel García wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> >
> > It's only "recommended" if you have a compiler that doesn't check for
> > such foolish things.
> >
>
> Understood. Thanks both.
>
> Another question (hope you don't mind me asking so much):
>
> I noticed easycap does lots of (redundant?) checks as:
>
> pvideo_device = video_devdata(file);
> if (!pvideo_device) {
> return -EFAULT;
> }
>
> Is this bad, good or doesn't matter?
> (There are more examples where the check is clearly not needed but
> this one makes me doubt a bit)
Depends on what video_devdata() does, and how it could ever be NULL.
> Maybe I'm focusing on small issues (as you already pointed out),
> do you think this kind of patches would be accepted?
>
> Of course, I would submit separate patches, one for each change:
> 1. split probe function
> 2. remove redundant checks
> 3. clean comment style
> ... and so on.
That sounds great.
> Also, I'm reading driver cx231xx as it's also an usb video capture.
> Do you think it's a good code reference? Can you give me further reference?
I don't know, ask the linux-media developers on their list for a good
reference driver to follow, they would know best.
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
