On Sun, 13 Apr 2014, Marek Vasut wrote:
>
> This portion of code looks like a duplicate of ...
>
> > + for (lock_bits = 1; lock_bits < 7; lock_bits++) {
> > + protected_area_start = flash->mtd.size -
> > + get_protected_area(flash, lock_bits);
> > + if (offset+len >= protected_area_start)
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + lock_bits--;
> > +
> > + status_new = (status_old & ~SR_BP_BIT_MASK) |
> > + ((lock_bits << SR_BP_BIT_OFFSET) & SR_BP_BIT_MASK);
>
> ... this here (if you don't consider the lock_bits--) . Why don't we move
> this
> into a separate function to avoid the duplication?
>
Thanks for reviewing this patch Marek, your suggestions were very
helpful. I am about to post another version that
hopefully addresses the issues raised, I would appreciate if you can take
another look at it.
Cheers,
Austin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
