On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 06:18:02AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/line6/driver.c b/drivers/staging/line6/driver.c
> > index 8a5d89e..884e0d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/line6/driver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/line6/driver.c
> > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ struct message {
> > */
> > static void line6_data_received(struct urb *urb);
> > static int line6_send_raw_message_async_part(struct message *msg,
> > - struct urb *urb);
> > + struct urb *urb, int free);
>
> s/int/bool/
>
> >
> > /*
> > Start to listen on endpoint.
> > @@ -219,24 +219,42 @@ static void line6_async_request_sent(struct urb *urb)
> > usb_free_urb(urb);
> > kfree(msg);
> > } else
> > - line6_send_raw_message_async_part(msg, urb);
> > + line6_send_raw_message_async_part(msg, urb, 0);
> > +}
>
> I'd add a bool free_buffer field to struct message and simply modify
> line6_async_request_sent() to do:
>
> if (msg->free_buffer)
> kfree(msg->buffer);
>
> Then you don't need line6_async_request_sent_free_buffer() and
> line6_send_raw_message_async_part() doesn't need to take a bool free
> argument since struct message already contains that information. It
> would make the code simpler.
Yeah. That's true. I'll redo it.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
