Re: [PATCH 2/4] staging/serqt_usb2: refactor qt_read_bulk_callback()in serqt_usb2.c

[YAMANE Toshiaki]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Why can't we test whether i == (RxCount - 3) earlier and handle
> the errors there?  That way we wouldn't need to pass the limit
> variable.
>
> In fact, this whole function is sort of nasty.  We start by doing
> a switch (data[i + 2]) { then we combine the 0x00 and 0x01 and call
> this function which separates them out and sets a function pointer
> and then calls the function point?  Get rid of this whole function.
>
> You shouldn't need to use function pointers to do this; that's too
> many levels of abstraction.

I feel it so diffcult to consider the fixing this patch more.

There are some reasons why I have become such a description.
- The purpose of this patch is the resolution of the
  line over 80 characters issue
- I Wrote the code to be aware of the following:
-- Do not change the procedure
-- The shallow nest
-- To avoid the redundancy

If I do not use a function pointer, which take the form below.

        if (0x00 == data[i + 2])
                dev_dbg(&port->dev, "Line status status.\n");
        else
                dev_dbg(&port->dev, "Modem status status.\n");

        if (i > limit) {
                dev_dbg(&port->dev,
                        "Illegal escape seuences in received data\n");
                return 0;
        }

        if (0x00 == data[i + 2])
                ProcessLineStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);
        else
                ProcessModemStatus(qt_port, data[i + 3]);

	return 1;

I also feel it may be...

And I am against to move the dev_dbg procedure call to
qt_status_change_check procedure because the nesting will be so deep.

>>       if (urb->status) {
>>               qt_port->ReadBulkStopped = 1;
>> -             dev_dbg(&urb->dev->dev, "%s - nonzero write bulk status received: %d\n",
>> +             dev_dbg(&urb->dev->dev,
>> +                     "%s - nonzero write bulk status received: %d\n",
>>                       __func__, urb->status);
>
> Don't mix in these unrelated 80 character limit changes.

I think the purpose of refactoring is the resolution of the line over 80
characters issue. I think that the separation of the patch should stop taking
because they are already applied in the linux-next tree.

Thanks.


YAMANE Toshiaki
yamanetoshi@xxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/