On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 00:54 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 08:31:53PM +0100, Mirsal Ennaime wrote:
> > @@ -2943,28 +2944,39 @@ static void binder_deferred_release(struct
> > binder_proc *proc)
> >
> > threads = 0;
> > active_transactions = 0;
> > +
>
> The blank line here isn't really appropriate. The initialization is
> logically a part of the loop. It's part of the same paragraph.
>
> > while ((n = rb_first(&proc->threads))) {
> > - struct binder_thread *thread = rb_entry(n, struct
> > binder_thread, rb_node);
> > + struct binder_thread *thread = rb_entry(n,
> > + struct binder_thread,
> > + rb_node);
>
> Do this instead:
> struct binder_thread *thread;
>
> thread = rb_entry(n, struct binder_thread, rb_node);
>
> > +
> > threads++;
> > active_transactions += binder_free_thread(proc, thread);
> > }
> > +
> > nodes = 0;
> > incoming_refs = 0;
> > +
> > while ((n = rb_first(&proc->nodes))) {
> > - struct binder_node *node = rb_entry(n, struct binder_node,
> > rb_node);
> > + struct binder_node *node = rb_entry(n,
> > + struct binder_node,
> > + rb_node);
> >
>
> Same thing again.Resending, thank you so much for reviewing this! All the best, -- mirsal
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
