[PATCH] ALSA/ASoC: replace ternary operator with min()
Fix the following coccicheck warning:
sound/soc/soc-ops.c:817: WARNING opportunity for min() sound/core/vmaster.c:73: WARNING opportunity for min() sound/pci/hda/hda_codec.c:337: WARNING opportunity for min() sound/pci/ctxfi/ctatc.c:448: WARNING opportunity for min() sound/pci/ctxfi/ctatc.c:387: WARNING opportunity for min()
Signed-off-by: KaiLong Wang wangkailong@jari.cn --- sound/core/vmaster.c | 2 +- sound/pci/ctxfi/ctatc.c | 4 ++-- sound/pci/hda/hda_codec.c | 2 +- sound/soc/soc-ops.c | 2 +- 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/core/vmaster.c b/sound/core/vmaster.c index d0f11f37889b..704a09f4bfd6 100644 --- a/sound/core/vmaster.c +++ b/sound/core/vmaster.c @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static int follower_update(struct link_follower *follower) follower->vals[ch] = uctl->value.integer.value[ch]; error: kfree(uctl); - return err < 0 ? err : 0; + return min(err, 0); }
/* get the follower ctl info and save the initial values */ diff --git a/sound/pci/ctxfi/ctatc.c b/sound/pci/ctxfi/ctatc.c index fbdb8a3d5b8e..9fea50b72cfb 100644 --- a/sound/pci/ctxfi/ctatc.c +++ b/sound/pci/ctxfi/ctatc.c @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static int atc_pcm_playback_start(struct ct_atc *atc, struct ct_atc_pcm *apcm) apcm->started = 1;
max_cisz = src->multi * src->rsc.msr; - max_cisz = 0x80 * (max_cisz < 8 ? max_cisz : 8); + max_cisz = 0x80 * min(max_cisz, 8);
src->ops->set_sa(src, apcm->vm_block->addr); src->ops->set_la(src, apcm->vm_block->addr + apcm->vm_block->size); @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ atc_pcm_playback_position(struct ct_atc *atc, struct ct_atc_pcm *apcm)
size = apcm->vm_block->size; max_cisz = src->multi * src->rsc.msr; - max_cisz = 128 * (max_cisz < 8 ? max_cisz : 8); + max_cisz = 128 * min(max_cisz, 8);
return (position + size - max_cisz - apcm->vm_block->addr) % size; } diff --git a/sound/pci/hda/hda_codec.c b/sound/pci/hda/hda_codec.c index b4d1e658c556..c195f99bd8d5 100644 --- a/sound/pci/hda/hda_codec.c +++ b/sound/pci/hda/hda_codec.c @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ int snd_hda_get_devices(struct hda_codec *codec, hda_nid_t nid, return 0;
dev_len = parm + 1; - dev_len = dev_len < max_devices ? dev_len : max_devices; + dev_len = min(dev_len, max_devices);
devices = 0; while (devices < dev_len) { diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-ops.c b/sound/soc/soc-ops.c index bd88de056358..d71d10055ed7 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-ops.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-ops.c @@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ int snd_soc_bytes_tlv_callback(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol, int op_flag, unsigned int size, unsigned int __user *tlv) { struct soc_bytes_ext *params = (void *)kcontrol->private_value; - unsigned int count = size < params->max ? size : params->max; + unsigned int count = min_t(unsigned int, size, params->max); int ret = -ENXIO;
switch (op_flag) {
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:56:11PM +0800, wangkailong@jari.cn wrote:
Fix the following coccicheck warning:
sound/soc/soc-ops.c:817: WARNING opportunity for min()
kfree(uctl);
- return err < 0 ? err : 0;
- return min(err, 0);
I don't think this is a good warning, while I'm no big fan of the ternery operator the new code is less clear about the intent than the old code.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 19:01:32 +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:56:11PM +0800, wangkailong@jari.cn wrote:
Fix the following coccicheck warning:
sound/soc/soc-ops.c:817: WARNING opportunity for min()
kfree(uctl);
- return err < 0 ? err : 0;
- return min(err, 0);
I don't think this is a good warning, while I'm no big fan of the ternery operator the new code is less clear about the intent than the old code.
Agreed. That use of ternery is a standard idiom.
If we have to eliminate the use of ternery inevitably, it'd be better to introduce a new macro for clarity instead.
thanks,
Takashi
On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 07:28:26AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:56:11PM +0800, wangkailong@jari.cn wrote:
sound/soc/soc-ops.c:817: WARNING opportunity for min()
kfree(uctl);
- return err < 0 ? err : 0;
- return min(err, 0);
I don't think this is a good warning, while I'm no big fan of the ternery operator the new code is less clear about the intent than the old code.
Agreed. That use of ternery is a standard idiom.
If we have to eliminate the use of ternery inevitably, it'd be better to introduce a new macro for clarity instead.
It looks like it's more about identifying a pattern that could be min() but not being able to detect the semantics of why we're comparing numbers.
participants (3)
-
Mark Brown -
Takashi Iwai -
wangkailong＠jari.cn