Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 28 Nov 2015 18:41:18 +0100 | From | Dave Penkler <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] Implement an ioctl to support the USMTMC-USB488 READ_STATUS_BYTE operation. |
| |
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 04:57:47PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Dave Penkler <dpenkler@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:38:39PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Dave Penkler <dpenkler@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:32:41PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Dave Penkler <dpenkler@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:55:27AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Dave Penkler <dpenkler@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you for an update! > > >> >> >> > + switch (status) { > >> >> >> > + case 0: /* SUCCESS */ > >> >> >> > + if (data->iin_buffer[0] & 0x80) { > >> >> >> > + /* check for valid STB notification */ > >> >> >> > + if ((data->iin_buffer[0] & 0x7f) > 1) { > > How can I miss that there are two conditionals in a sequence and > moreover for the same data?!
Sorry, my fault, it is the combination of patch 1 and 2
> That might explain the optimization done by compiler. > > So, could it be transformed to simple one condition > if (data->iin_buffer[0] > 0x81 /* 129 */) { > ?
OK so now for patch 1 and 2 we have:
switch (status) { case 0: /* SUCCESS */ /* PATCH 1 check for valid STB notification */ if (data->iin_buffer[0] > 0x81) { data->bNotify1 = data->iin_buffer[0]; data->bNotify2 = data->iin_buffer[1]; atomic_set(&data->iin_data_valid, 1); wake_up_interruptible(&data->waitq); goto exit; } /* PATCH 2 check for SRQ notification */ if (data->iin_buffer[0] == 0x81) { if (data->fasync) kill_fasync(&data->fasync, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
atomic_set(&data->srq_asserted, 1); wake_up_interruptible(&data->waitq); goto exit; }
I'll push a new set if you are OK with this. cheers, -Dave
| |