Re: [PATCH] usb: misc: add a missing continue and refactor code

["Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>]

Quoting "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>:

> Hi Alan,
>
> Quoting Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>:
>
>> 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 <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@embeddedor.com>
>>> ---
>>> 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'?
>

Oh I see, the following piece of code should be part of the  
USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_BULK case:

if (usb_endpoint_dir_in(&e->desc)) {
         if (!in)
                 in = e;
} else {
         if (!out)
                 out = e;
}
continue;

--
Gustavo A. R. Silva