On Sat, Oct 08, 2016 at 11:10:10AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2016, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 08 Oct 2016 10:40:37 -0000, Nicholas Mc Guire said:
> >
> > > } else if (rtlpcipriv->bt_coexist.bt_service == BT_PAN) {
> > > rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_GPIO_MUXCFG, tmp1byte);
> > > } else {
> > > rtl_write_byte(rtlpriv, REG_GPIO_MUXCFG, tmp1byte);
> > > }
> >
> > That *does* smell like a bug. If nothing else, the last 'else if'
> > can be removed. Most likely case: somebody cut-n-pasted that last
> > section in and failed to change it to a proper 'default' value and
> > the code falls through to that one rarely enough that nobody has
> > noticed.
>
> if that's the behaviour the developer actually wants, then yes, it's
> messy. but i would be very careful just simplifying it wholesale,
> since it also smacks of a typo where one copy-and-pasted to add the
> default case, then forgot to tweak it to be different.
>
> rather than "fixing" it, i would bring it to the attention of the
> maintainer, and ask him or her to resolve it.
>
sure - no point in fixing code one does not understand.
if at all I send "fixes" out as RFCs if it seems like an obvious
case - and in all other cases a notification/questions are sent
but no patch.
thx!
hofrat
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
