On Fri, 19 May 2023 13:53:01 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:04:32PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2023 12:43:24 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 04:53:19PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2023 16:09:45 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
-static int snd_emu10k1_pcm_channel_alloc(struct snd_emu10k1_pcm * epcm, int voices) +static void snd_emu10k1_pcm_free_voices(struct snd_emu10k1_pcm *epcm) {
- int err, i;
- for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(epcm->voices); i++) {
- for (unsigned i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(epcm->voices); i++) {
I'm not super-strict about it, but
as checkpatch complaints,
it doesn't, so from that side it's settled. it's really just about the alsa-local policy.
what it actually *does* complain about is the use of bare "unsigned".
Ah that's OK, then.
i don't like the excessively verbose "unsigned int", so i'll switch my uses over to "uint", which already has some use in alsa. ok?
I don't mind much about the use of unsigned without int. Or it could be a simple int there, as that's nothing but a counter that is used locally that can't over 31bit.
But the patch description could be still improved.
thanks,
Takashi