On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:31:51PM +0200, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > static void free_dma_aligned_buffer(struct urb *urb)
> > {
> > struct dma_aligned_buffer *temp;
> > + size_t length;
> >
> > if (!(urb->transfer_flags & URB_ALIGNED_TEMP_BUFFER))
> > return;
> > @@ -311,9 +312,14 @@ static void free_dma_aligned_buffer(struct urb *urb)
> > temp = container_of(urb->transfer_buffer,
> > struct dma_aligned_buffer, data);
> >
> > - if (usb_urb_dir_in(urb))
> > - memcpy(temp->old_xfer_buffer, temp->data,
> > - urb->transfer_buffer_length);
> > + if (usb_urb_dir_in(urb)) {
> > + if (usb_pipeisoc(urb->pipe))
> > + length = urb->transfer_buffer_length;
> > + else
> > + length = urb->actual_length;
> > +
> > + memcpy(temp->old_xfer_buffer, temp->data, length);
> > + }
> > urb->transfer_buffer = temp->old_xfer_buffer;
> > kfree(temp->kmalloc_ptr);
>
> Out of curiosity: any reason not to declare that length variable
> inside this new compound?
Just my style preference.
Johan
--
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
