At Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:45:48 +0100, Pawel MOLL wrote:
Could you split this as a separate patch? This unsigned int -> int change is irrelevant with the fix for 8 PCM devices limit.
Well, actually it is :-) Take a look here:
static inline int snd_pcm_next(struct snd_card *card, int device) { struct snd_pcm *pcm;
list_for_each_entry(pcm, &snd_pcm_devices, list) { if (pcm->card == card && pcm->device > device) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ return pcm->device; else if (pcm->card->number > card->number) return -1; } return -1;}
Ah yeah, this new part contains it.
When device = -1 (first step on enumeration) the expression:
(unsigned)pcm->device > (unsigned)device
will be always 0 as (unsigned)-1 == 0xffffffff...
I wouldn't touch this at all in other case ;-)
You cannot use SNDRV_OS_MINORS unconditionally here. In the case DYNAMIC_MINORS=n, SNDRV_PCM_DEVICES is still valid. Maybe better to define SNDRV_PCM_DEVICES with ifdef, such as,
#ifdef CONFIG_SND_DYNAMIC_MINORS #define SNDRV_PCM_DEVICES (SNDRV_OS_MINORS-2) #else #define SNDRV_PCM_DEVICES 8 #endif
To be perfectly honest I don't see the point, as in both cases the value may be simply wrong (I mean device not existing at all), so as for me these checks are just "safety fuses" and above is yet another #ifdef, but no problem - I will revive this constant.
Yes, it's for safety reason. And, no reason to break old behavior. In slightest case, it can be a regression :)
-static struct snd_pcm *snd_pcm_search(struct snd_card *card, int
device)
+static inline struct snd_pcm *snd_pcm_get(struct snd_card *card,
int device)
Don't use inline. It's good for a single-line or a pretty small function, but not for else. The compiler is clever enough to inline the functions automatically if needed.
Well, I used to define functions which are called from just one place (which are usually just an extracted part of other huge function ;-) as inline, but as you wish - I wont persist on it.
Especially in such a case, you really don't have to make it inline.
Also, any reason to rename to *_get()? get() is usually paired with put().
I see your point. My motivation was: this function is not used for searching the list any more, just for getting a reference to one, defined element. Of course I can leave it as it was.
OK, point taken. No big problem to rename, but I just wondered.
thanks,
Takashi