Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] remoteproc: Restructure firmware name allocation

[Mathieu Poirier]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 08:39:39AM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Markus,
> 
> On 4/16/20 1:26 AM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > â
> > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > @@ -1984,14 +1984,14 @@ static int rproc_alloc_firmware(struct rproc *rproc,
> > >   {
> > >   	const char *p;
> > > 
> > > -	if (!firmware)
> > > +	if (firmware)
> > > +		p = kstrdup_const(firmware, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +	else
> > >   		/*
> > >   		 * If the caller didn't pass in a firmware name then
> > >   		 * construct a default name.
> > >   		 */
> > >   		p = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "rproc-%s-fw", name);
> > > -	else
> > > -		p = kstrdup_const(firmware, GFP_KERNEL);
> > 
> > Can the use of the conditional operator make sense at such source code places?
> > 
> > 	p = firmware ? kstrdup_const(â) : kasprintf(â);
> 
> For simple assignments, I too prefer the ternary operator, but in this case,
> I think it is better to leave the current code as is.

I agree with Suman, that's why I didn't use the conditional operator.

> 
> regards
> Suman