[PATCH v4 1/2] ALSA: core: remove initialise static variables to 0
Initializing the static variable to 0 causes the following error when exec checkpatch:
ERROR: do not initialise statics to 0 FILE: sound/sound_core.c:142: static int preclaim_oss = 0;
In addition, considering the following way of writing 139: #ifdef config_sound_oss_core_preclaim 140: Static int preclaim_oss = 1; 141: #ELSE 142: Static int preclaim_oss = 0; 143: #ENDIF We can optimize it by IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOUND_OSS_CORE_PRECLAIM), so modified it to static int preclaim_oss = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOUND_OSS_CORE_PRECLAIM);
Signed-off-by: Meng Tang tangmeng@uniontech.com Signed-off-by: Joe Perches joe@perches.com --- sound/sound_core.c | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/sound_core.c b/sound/sound_core.c index 90d118cd9164..aa4a57e488e5 100644 --- a/sound/sound_core.c +++ b/sound/sound_core.c @@ -136,11 +136,7 @@ struct sound_unit * All these clutters are scheduled to be removed along with * sound-slot/service-* module aliases. */ -#ifdef CONFIG_SOUND_OSS_CORE_PRECLAIM -static int preclaim_oss = 1; -#else -static int preclaim_oss = 0; -#endif +static int preclaim_oss = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOUND_OSS_CORE_PRECLAIM);
module_param(preclaim_oss, int, 0444);
Return the result from file->f_op->open() directly instead of taking this in another redundant variable. Make the typical return the last statement, return early and reduce the indentation too.
Signed-off-by: Meng Tang tangmeng@uniontech.com Signed-off-by: Joe Perches joe@perches.com --- sound/sound_core.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/sound_core.c b/sound/sound_core.c index aa4a57e488e5..3332fe321737 100644 --- a/sound/sound_core.c +++ b/sound/sound_core.c @@ -577,20 +577,20 @@ static int soundcore_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) new_fops = fops_get(s->unit_fops); } spin_unlock(&sound_loader_lock); - if (new_fops) { - /* - * We rely upon the fact that we can't be unloaded while the - * subdriver is there. - */ - int err = 0; - replace_fops(file, new_fops);
- if (file->f_op->open) - err = file->f_op->open(inode,file); + if (!new_fops) + return -ENODEV;
- return err; - } - return -ENODEV; + /* + * We rely upon the fact that we can't be unloaded while the + * subdriver is there. + */ + replace_fops(file, new_fops); + + if (!file->f_op->open) + return -ENODEV; + + return file->f_op->open(inode, file); }
MODULE_ALIAS_CHARDEV_MAJOR(SOUND_MAJOR);
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 13:02 +0800, Meng Tang wrote:
Return the result from file->f_op->open() directly instead of taking this in another redundant variable. Make the typical return the last statement, return early and reduce the indentation too.
Signed-off-by: Meng Tang tangmeng@uniontech.com Signed-off-by: Joe Perches joe@perches.com
Hi Meng Tang.
For the next time: it's not necessary (or even good) to add a sign-off for another person unless they specifically authorize one.
You wrote and are submitting these changes, I merely gave you simple suggestions as to how you could improve them.
cheers, Joe
sound/sound_core.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/sound_core.c b/sound/sound_core.c index aa4a57e488e5..3332fe321737 100644 --- a/sound/sound_core.c +++ b/sound/sound_core.c @@ -577,20 +577,20 @@ static int soundcore_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) new_fops = fops_get(s->unit_fops); } spin_unlock(&sound_loader_lock);
if (new_fops) {
/** We rely upon the fact that we can't be unloaded while the* subdriver is there.*/int err = 0;replace_fops(file, new_fops);if (file->f_op->open)err = file->f_op->open(inode,file);
- if (!new_fops)
return -ENODEV;
return err;- }
- return -ENODEV;
- /*
* We rely upon the fact that we can't be unloaded while the* subdriver is there.*/- replace_fops(file, new_fops);
- if (!file->f_op->open)
return -ENODEV;- return file->f_op->open(inode, file);
}
MODULE_ALIAS_CHARDEV_MAJOR(SOUND_MAJOR);
On 2022/2/28 13:20, Joe Perches wrote:
Hi Meng Tang.
For the next time: it's not necessary (or even good) to add a sign-off for another person unless they specifically authorize one.
You wrote and are submitting these changes, I merely gave you simple suggestions as to how you could improve them.
cheers, Joe
Okay，thanks for the heads up and suggestions.
Cheers, Meng
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:20:45 +0100, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 13:02 +0800, Meng Tang wrote:
Return the result from file->f_op->open() directly instead of taking this in another redundant variable. Make the typical return the last statement, return early and reduce the indentation too.
Signed-off-by: Meng Tang tangmeng@uniontech.com Signed-off-by: Joe Perches joe@perches.com
Hi Meng Tang.
For the next time: it's not necessary (or even good) to add a sign-off for another person unless they specifically authorize one.
You wrote and are submitting these changes, I merely gave you simple suggestions as to how you could improve them.
Joe, would you like to drop your S-o-b lines from those two patches? Or shall I keep them?
thanks,
Takashi
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 17:02 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:20:45 +0100, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 13:02 +0800, Meng Tang wrote:
Return the result from file->f_op->open() directly instead of taking this in another redundant variable. Make the typical return the last statement, return early and reduce the indentation too.
Signed-off-by: Meng Tang tangmeng@uniontech.com Signed-off-by: Joe Perches joe@perches.com
Hi Meng Tang.
For the next time: it's not necessary (or even good) to add a sign-off for another person unless they specifically authorize one.
You wrote and are submitting these changes, I merely gave you simple suggestions as to how you could improve them.
Joe, would you like to drop your S-o-b lines from those two patches? Or shall I keep them?
thanks,
Takashi
Hi Takashi.
Nominally, the sign-off-by chain shows who pushed these changes upstream and I did not and I am not an upstream aggregator.
But whatever you choose is OK. It's not really a concern to me. I do think these changes are ok.
cheers, Joe
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 17:39:21 +0100, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 17:02 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 06:20:45 +0100, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 13:02 +0800, Meng Tang wrote:
Return the result from file->f_op->open() directly instead of taking this in another redundant variable. Make the typical return the last statement, return early and reduce the indentation too.
Signed-off-by: Meng Tang tangmeng@uniontech.com Signed-off-by: Joe Perches joe@perches.com
Hi Meng Tang.
For the next time: it's not necessary (or even good) to add a sign-off for another person unless they specifically authorize one.
You wrote and are submitting these changes, I merely gave you simple suggestions as to how you could improve them.
Joe, would you like to drop your S-o-b lines from those two patches? Or shall I keep them?
thanks,
Takashi
Hi Takashi.
Nominally, the sign-off-by chain shows who pushed these changes upstream and I did not and I am not an upstream aggregator.
But whatever you choose is OK. It's not really a concern to me. I do think these changes are ok.
OK, I dropped S-o-b lines and applied the patches now.
thanks,
Takashi
participants (4)
-
Joe Perches -
Meng Tang -
Takashi Iwai -
tangmeng