Re: [PATCH 9/9] tty: n_gsm: cleanup gsm_control_command and gsm_control_reply

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023, D. Starke wrote:

> From: Daniel Starke <daniel.starke@siemens.com>
> 
> There are multiple places in gsm_control_command and gsm_control_reply that
> derive the specific DLCI handle directly out of the DLCI table in gsm.
> 
> Add a local variable which holds this handle and use it instead to improve
> code readability.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Starke <daniel.starke@siemens.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tty/n_gsm.c | 14 ++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c b/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
> index 61f9825fde3c..87720ebc38d7 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/n_gsm.c
> @@ -1454,16 +1454,17 @@ static int gsm_control_command(struct gsm_mux *gsm, int cmd, const u8 *data,
>  			       int dlen)
>  {
>  	struct gsm_msg *msg;
> +	struct gsm_dlci *dlci = gsm->dlci[0];
>  
> -	msg = gsm_data_alloc(gsm, 0, dlen + 2, gsm->dlci[0]->ftype);
> +	msg = gsm_data_alloc(gsm, 0, dlen + 2, dlci->ftype);
>  	if (msg == NULL)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	msg->data[0] = (cmd << 1) | CR | EA;	/* Set C/R */
>  	msg->data[1] = (dlen << 1) | EA;
>  	memcpy(msg->data + 2, data, dlen);
> -	gsm_data_queue(gsm->dlci[0], msg);
> -	gsm->dlci[0]->tx += dlen;
> +	gsm_data_queue(dlci, msg);
> +	dlci->tx += dlen;
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -1482,15 +1483,16 @@ static void gsm_control_reply(struct gsm_mux *gsm, int cmd, const u8 *data,
>  					int dlen)
>  {
>  	struct gsm_msg *msg;
> +	struct gsm_dlci *dlci = gsm->dlci[0];
>  
> -	msg = gsm_data_alloc(gsm, 0, dlen + 2, gsm->dlci[0]->ftype);
> +	msg = gsm_data_alloc(gsm, 0, dlen + 2, dlci->ftype);
>  	if (msg == NULL)
>  		return;
>  	msg->data[0] = (cmd & 0xFE) << 1 | EA;	/* Clear C/R */
>  	msg->data[1] = (dlen << 1) | EA;
>  	memcpy(msg->data + 2, data, dlen);
> -	gsm_data_queue(gsm->dlci[0], msg);
> -	gsm->dlci[0]->tx += dlen;
> +	gsm_data_queue(dlci, msg);
> +	dlci->tx += dlen;
>  }
>  
>  /**
> 

IMO, this patch should be done before patch 8/9.

-- 
 i.