On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:57:29PM +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Hi Johan,
>>
>> Again, thanks for the detailed review, I am addressing your review
>> comments as we speak. Some questions below.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > + int ret, len;
>> > > + struct tx_data {
>> > > + u8 port;
>> > > + u8 addr;
>> > > + u8 mem_addr_len;
>> > > + __le32 mem_addr;
>> > > + __le16 buf_len;
>> > > + u8 buf[DLN2_I2C_MAX_XFER_SIZE];
>> > > + } __packed tx;
>> >
>> > Allocate these buffers dynamically (possibly at probe).
>> >
>>
>> I double checked this, and DLN2_I2C_MAX_XFER_SIZE should actually be <
>> 64 as the USB endpoint configuration max packet size is 64. In this
>> case, can we keep it on the stack?
>
> It's better to lift that restriction and allocate it dynamically. Using
> larger buffers (> EP size) is also more efficient.
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > + int ret, buf_len, rx_len = sizeof(rx);
>> >
>> > Again, one declaration per line.
>>
>> AFAICS there are many places where declaration on the same line
>> (initialization included) are used. When did this became a coding
>> style issue?
>
> It's ugly, hurts readability, and can also obfuscate the fact that your
> function really needs to be refactored.
>
> And it's in the CodingStyle:
>
> "To this end, use just one data declaration per line (no commas
> for multiple data declarations)."
>
OK, I always thought that was for when declaring structures/unions.
Just one more question on this subject: is the following allowed:
int ret, len;
or should it be:
int ret;
int len;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
