[PATCH 11/15] staging: wfx: prefer ARRAY_SIZE instead of a magic number
From: Jerome Pouiller
Date: Tue May 05 2020 - 08:39:32 EST
From: JÃrÃme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@xxxxxxxxxx>
When possible, we prefer to use the macro ARRAY_SIZE rather than hard
coding the number of elements.
Signed-off-by: JÃrÃme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/wfx/data_tx.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/data_tx.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/data_tx.c
index 30aa8c267cd0..83a9256f09bf 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/wfx/data_tx.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/wfx/data_tx.c
@@ -166,13 +166,13 @@ static int wfx_tx_policy_upload(struct wfx_vif *wvif)
do {
spin_lock_bh(&wvif->tx_policy_cache.lock);
- for (i = 0; i < HIF_TX_RETRY_POLICY_MAX; ++i) {
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(wvif->tx_policy_cache.cache); ++i) {
is_used = memzcmp(policies[i].rates,
sizeof(policies[i].rates));
if (!policies[i].uploaded && is_used)
break;
}
- if (i < HIF_TX_RETRY_POLICY_MAX) {
+ if (i < ARRAY_SIZE(wvif->tx_policy_cache.cache)) {
policies[i].uploaded = true;
memcpy(tmp_rates, policies[i].rates, sizeof(tmp_rates));
spin_unlock_bh(&wvif->tx_policy_cache.lock);
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static int wfx_tx_policy_upload(struct wfx_vif *wvif)
} else {
spin_unlock_bh(&wvif->tx_policy_cache.lock);
}
- } while (i < HIF_TX_RETRY_POLICY_MAX);
+ } while (i < ARRAY_SIZE(wvif->tx_policy_cache.cache));
return 0;
}
@@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ void wfx_tx_policy_init(struct wfx_vif *wvif)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cache->used);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cache->free);
- for (i = 0; i < HIF_TX_RETRY_POLICY_MAX; ++i)
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cache->cache); ++i)
list_add(&cache->cache[i].link, &cache->free);
}
--
2.26.1