--- On Fri, 5/28/10, Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1. The ID 255 will never be assigned. Is it intended or a bug?
On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:17:42 +0200, David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ISTR intentional ... isn't 255 reserved to indicate "no valid string ID"?
(Either in the USB spec or in Linux.) I'd have to check the spec to verify.
I think it would be worth commenting since less experienced hackers (like
me) may get confused why 255 is omitted.
2. 'next_string_id' name is not really appropriate since it does not
store an ID of a *next* string
I don't follow. It's certainly the next ID returned by that function...
No, it is the value returned by the call to the function so the
next call will return a different value. For me, the name is a bit
confusing. For me the following two are intuitive:
int foo() {
static int next;
return next++;
}
int bar() {
static int last;
return ++last;
}
where with usb_string_id we have:
int usb_string_id(struct usb_composite_dev *cdev) {
return ++cdev->next_string_id;
}
But maybe it's just me...
--
Best regards, _ _
| Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
| Computer Science, Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
+----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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
