On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Why can't we test whether i == (RxCount - 3) earlier and handle
> the errors there? That way we wouldn't need to pass the limit
> variable.
>
> In fact, this whole function is sort of nasty. We start by doing
> a switch (data[i + 2]) { then we combine the 0x00 and 0x01 and call
> this function which separates them out and sets a function pointer
> and then calls the function point? Get rid of this whole function.
>
> You shouldn't need to use function pointers to do this; that's too
> many levels of abstraction.
I feel it so diffcult to consider the fixing this patch more.
There are some reasons why I have become such a description.
- The purpose of this patch is the resolution of the
line over 80 characters issue
- I Wrote the code to be aware of the following:
-- Do not change the procedure
-- The shallow nest
-- To avoid the redundancy
If I do not use a function pointer, which take the form below.
if (0x00 == data[i + 2])
dev_dbg(&port->dev, "Line status status.\n");
else
dev_dbg(&port->dev, "Modem status status.\n");
if (i > limit) {
dev_dbg(&port->dev,
"Illegal escape seuences in received data\n");
return 0;
}
if (0x00 == data[i + 2])
ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
else
ProcessModemStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
return 1;
I also feel it may be...
And I am against to move the dev_dbg procedure call to
qt_status_change_check procedure because the nesting will be so deep.
>> if (urb->status) {
>> qt_port->ReadBulkStopped = 1;
>> - dev_dbg(&urb->dev->dev, "%s - nonzero write bulk status received: %d\n",
>> + dev_dbg(&urb->dev->dev,
>> + "%s - nonzero write bulk status received: %d\n",
>> __func__, urb->status);
>
> Don't mix in these unrelated 80 character limit changes.
I think the purpose of refactoring is the resolution of the line over 80
characters issue. I think that the separation of the patch should stop taking
because they are already applied in the linux-next tree.
Thanks.
YAMANE Toshiaki
yamanetoshi@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
