lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 04/18] [media] RedRat3: One function call less in redrat3_transmit_ir() after error detection
From
Date
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/rc/redrat3.c b/drivers/media/rc/redrat3.c
>> index 7ae2ced..71e901d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/rc/redrat3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/rc/redrat3.c
>> @@ -723,10 +723,10 @@ static int redrat3_transmit_ir(struct rc_dev *rcdev, unsigned *txbuf,
>> {
>> struct redrat3_dev *rr3 = rcdev->priv;
>> struct device *dev = rr3->dev;
>> - struct redrat3_irdata *irdata = NULL;
>> + struct redrat3_irdata *irdata;
>> int ret, ret_len;
>> int lencheck, cur_sample_len, pipe;
>> - int *sample_lens = NULL;
>> + int *sample_lens;
>> u8 curlencheck;
>> unsigned i, sendbuf_len;
>>
>> @@ -747,7 +747,7 @@ static int redrat3_transmit_ir(struct rc_dev *rcdev, unsigned *txbuf,
>> irdata = kzalloc(sizeof(*irdata), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!irdata) {
>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>> - goto out;
>> + goto free_sample;
>> }
>>
>> /* rr3 will disable rc detector on transmit */
>> @@ -776,7 +776,7 @@ static int redrat3_transmit_ir(struct rc_dev *rcdev, unsigned *txbuf,
>> curlencheck++;
>> } else {
>> ret = -EINVAL;
>> - goto out;
>> + goto reset_member;
>> }
>> }
>> irdata->sigdata[i] = lencheck;
>> @@ -811,14 +811,12 @@ static int redrat3_transmit_ir(struct rc_dev *rcdev, unsigned *txbuf,
>> dev_err(dev, "Error: control msg send failed, rc %d\n", ret);
>> else
>> ret = count;
>> -
>> -out:
>> - kfree(irdata);
>> - kfree(sample_lens);
>> -
>> +reset_member:
>> rr3->transmitting = false;
>> /* rr3 re-enables rc detector because it was enabled before */
>> -
>> + kfree(irdata);
>> +free_sample:
>> + kfree(sample_lens);
>
> In this error path, rr3->transmitting is not set to false

Can it be that this reset is not needed because it should have still got this value already
in the software refactoring I proposed here?


> so now the driver will never allow you transmit again.

I have got an other impression.


> Also this patch does not apply against latest.

Do you want that I rebase my update suggestion for this software module on a published commit
that is more recent than 2016-09-22 (d6ae162bd13998a6511e5efbc7c19ab542ba1555 for example)?

Regards,
Markus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-15 19:01    [W:0.740 / U:2.812 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site