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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
---
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);
--
2.20.1
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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
---
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);
--
2.20.1
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 <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
> >
> > 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 <[email protected]>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > 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