Hi Alan,
Quoting Alan Stern <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
Code refactoring to make the flow easier to follow and add missing
'continue' for case USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_INT.
Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1248733
Cc: Alan Stern <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
---
drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c | 50
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
index 3525626..8723e33 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
@@ -124,6 +124,32 @@ static struct usb_device
*testdev_to_usbdev(struct usbtest_dev *test)
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
+static inline void try_intr(struct usb_host_endpoint *e,
+ struct usb_host_endpoint *int_in,
+ struct usb_host_endpoint *int_out)
+{
+ if (usb_endpoint_dir_in(&e->desc)) {
+ if (!int_in)
+ int_in = e;
+ } else {
+ if (!int_out)
+ int_out = e;
+ }
+}
+
+static inline void try_iso(struct usb_host_endpoint *e,
+ struct usb_host_endpoint *iso_in,
+ struct usb_host_endpoint *iso_out)
+{
+ if (usb_endpoint_dir_in(&e->desc)) {
+ if (!iso_in)
+ iso_in = e;
+ } else {
+ if (!iso_out)
+ iso_out = e;
+ }
+}
+
This is not at all what I had in mind. First, it's incorrect (can you
see why?). Second, by "inline" I meant moving the code to be actually
in-line next to the conditional, not some place else in a separate
subroutine (even if the subroutine is declared inline).
Interesting... let me double check.
I thought it would've been better to have separate inline subroutines
for those "goto".
Also, the code for the USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_BULK case should look like the
other two.
Do you mean a 'continue' instead of the 'break'?
Thanks for you comments.
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva
