Re: [PATCH 1/4] staging: wilc1000: remove use of 'happened' variable in wilc_spi_read_int()

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 02:09:01PM +0530, Ajay Singh wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:20:58 +0300
> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 09:42:09PM +0530, Ajay Singh wrote:
> > > Modified wilc_spi_read_int() by removing unnecessary use of "happened"
> > > variable.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@microchip.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_spi.c | 8 +++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_spi.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_spi.c
> > > index 6b392c9..131d2b7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_spi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_spi.c
> > > @@ -936,7 +936,7 @@ static int wilc_spi_read_int(struct wilc *wilc, u32 *int_status)
> > >  	int ret;
> > >  	u32 tmp;
> > >  	u32 byte_cnt;
> > > -	int happened, j;
> > > +	int j;
> > >  	u32 unknown_mask;
> > >  	u32 irq_flags;
> > >  	int k = IRG_FLAGS_OFFSET + 5;
> > > @@ -956,8 +956,6 @@ static int wilc_spi_read_int(struct wilc *wilc, u32 *int_status)
> > >  
> > >  	j = 0;
> > >  	do {
> > > -		happened = 0;
> > > -
> > >  		wilc_spi_read_reg(wilc, 0x1a90, &irq_flags);
> > >  		tmp |= ((irq_flags >> 27) << IRG_FLAGS_OFFSET);
> > >  
> > > @@ -972,11 +970,11 @@ static int wilc_spi_read_int(struct wilc *wilc, u32 *int_status)
> > >  			dev_err(&spi->dev,
> > >  				"Unexpected interrupt(2):j=%d,tmp=%x,mask=%x\n",
> > >  				j, tmp, unknown_mask);
> > > -				happened = 1;
> > > +				break;  
> > 
> > This is flipped around.  happened means don't break, but you've changed
> > it to be the opposite.
> 
> You are right. Thanks for pointing it out. It's was a mistake. I will
> change 'break' to 'continue' and while(1) to while(0) and resubmit the
> patch.
> 

Don't be in a hurry to resend.  I always wait over night before
resending so that I'm not stressed when I review it.  What you are
proposing still sounds wrong because the j++ is essential.  Anyway, I
can't really review your v2 patch until you send it.

regards,
dan carpenter