...

...

...

• /* make sure count is <= avail */
• count = avail > count ? count : avail;

min()?

I tried to use min() but then Sparse started complaining so went back to an explicit test+assign. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but we've found so many improvements with the tools that I tend to favor warning-free code.

Why was sparse complaining - was it spotting something that is an actual issue here and you've just masked the warning?

It was about the use of typeof/sizeof() in min(), not an actual issue in the code

sound/soc/sof/trace.c:90:17: warning: expression using sizeof(void) sound/soc/sof/trace.c:90:17: warning: expression using sizeof(void)