On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, roel kluin wrote:
quoted text
> vi drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/message.c +4035
>
> and note two similar tests on line 4035 and 4049:
>
> [else] if (plci->msg_in_read_pos == plci->msg_in_wrap_pos)
>
> after the first test:
>
> 	plci->msg_in_wrap_pos = MSG_IN_QUEUE_SIZE;
> 	plci->msg_in_read_pos = i + MSG_IN_OVERHEAD;
>
> but then after the second test as well:
>
> 	plci->msg_in_read_pos = MSG_IN_QUEUE_SIZE;
> 	plci->msg_in_wrap_pos = MSG_IN_QUEUE_SIZE;
>
>
> So the assignment after the first test has no effect. Is this a bug?

If (plci->msg_in_read_pos == plci->msg_in_wrap_pos) is true in the first 
test it can't be true in the second.
So the code could be optimized a bit. But the first assignments are needed.

If it's false in the first it may become true in the second. So it's not a 
bug. All conditions are really needed.

Armin

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/