On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Fri, 07 Dec 2001 11:09:54 +0800,
> Kyle Centers wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Still nit-picking, but the following code is just ugly, and I cannot see any
>reason for writing it this way. From card_emu10k1.c (and a few other files in card/,
>as a quick look shows), the snd_emu10k1_probe(...), starting at line 97:
> > for ( ; dev < SNDRV_CARDS; dev++) {
> > if (!snd_enable[dev]) {
> > dev++;
> > return -ENOENT;
> > }
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > Now as best I can tell, the following would do the same thing, but the structure
>is more clear, smaller, and probably faster:
> >
> > if( (dev < SNDRV_CARDS) && (!snd_enable[dev]) )
> > {
> > dev++;
> > return -ENOENT;
> > }
> >
> > Is there a reason for the for loop? or should that code be changed? I can't see
>any advanage to it at all.
>
> I believe you're right.
> The code could be like this:
>
> int foo_probe()
> {
> if (dev >= SNDRV_CARDS)
> return -ENODEV;
> if (! snd_enable[dev]) {
> dev++;
> return -ENOENT;
> }
> ...
> dev++;
> return 0;
> }
>
> Jaroslav, do you see any problem?
No, I don't believe that I'm author of such code. I'll try to change this
code block ASAP.
Jaroslav
-----
Jaroslav Kysela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SuSE Linux http://www.suse.com
ALSA Project http://www.alsa-project.org
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
