On 02/07/14 20:06, Mathieu Poirier wrote:

quoted

quoted

+struct dentry *cs_debugfs_parent = NULL;
+
+static int curr_sink = NO_SINK;
+static LIST_HEAD(coresight_orph_conns);
+static LIST_HEAD(coresight_devs);
+static DEFINE_SEMAPHORE(coresight_mutex);

Why is coresight_mutex a semaphore?

Bad naming convention.

Really? I only saw it used like a mutex, in other words I thought it was
incorrectly typed, rather than incorrectly named.

quoted

quoted

+static void coresight_disable_link(struct coresight_device *csdev)
+{
+     int link_subtype;
+     int refport, inport, outport;
+
+     inport = coresight_find_link_inport(csdev);
+     outport = coresight_find_link_outport(csdev);
+
+     link_subtype = csdev->subtype.link_subtype;
+     if (link_subtype == CORESIGHT_DEV_SUBTYPE_LINK_MERG)
+             refport = inport;
+     else if (link_subtype == CORESIGHT_DEV_SUBTYPE_LINK_SPLIT)
+             refport = outport;
+     else
+             refport = 0;

I already read these 7 lines once...

It is really worth spinning off a function to save 5 lines?

Pretty marginal really. If the code here stays as it is I don't care
enough to raise this point a second time.


Daniel.