Vernon Sauder <vernoninhand@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Robert Jarzmik wrote, On 01/17/2009 05:46 AM:
>> Vernon Sauder <vernoninhand@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/pxa27x_udc.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/pxa27x_udc.c
>>> index a896431..af35088 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/pxa27x_udc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/pxa27x_udc.c
>>> @@ -817,9 +817,7 @@ static void ep_end_in_req(struct pxa_ep *ep, struct pxa27x_request *req)
>>> */
>>> static void ep0_end_in_req(struct pxa_ep *ep, struct pxa27x_request *req)
>>> {
>>> - struct pxa_udc *udc = ep->dev;
>>> -
>>> - set_ep0state(udc, IN_STATUS_STAGE);
>>> + set_ep0state(ep->dev, IN_STATUS_STAGE);
>>> ep_end_in_req(ep, req);
>>> }
>> No. Leave the optimization to the compiler, he's smarter than me anyway. The way
>> the code is written is for maintainability. I'm pretty sure the compiler will
>> deal with the local variable appropriately.
>>
>
> I was making this function match its sister ep0_end_out_req for
> maintainability. Why should they be different? Should I submit a patch
> to change ep0_end_out_req to add the local variable?
Damn, you're right. Symmetry should be respected.
So then, that one is OK.
Cheers.
--
Robert
--
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
