On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Ming Lei wrote: > >> + > >> + spin_lock(&bh->lock); > >> + list_add_tail(&urb->urb_list, &bh->head); > >> + if (bh->running) > >> + sched = 0; > >> + else > >> + sched = 1; > >> + spin_unlock(&bh->lock); > > > > How about calling this variable "running" instead of "sched"? Then you > > could just say: > > > > running = bh->running; > > > > with no "if" statement. > > OK, even we can do this below without name change: > > sched = !bh->running; > > > > >> + > >> + if (!sched) > >> + ; > >> + else if (high_prio_bh) > >> + tasklet_hi_schedule(&bh->bh); > >> + else > >> + tasklet_schedule(&bh->bh); The advantage of "running" instead of "sched" is that it avoids a double negative: sched = !bh->running; ... if (!sched) ... as opposed to running = bh->running; ... if (running) ... Alan Stern -- 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
