Commit 5de7fc0b authored by Alessandro Rubini's avatar Alessandro Rubini Committed by Adam Wujek

fsm.c: move assignement of is_new_state together

As a side effect, we get a reported "enter initializing" message
when wrs has a link-up event (because in that case state-change is
performed externally, not by a state that switches to another).
Signed-off-by: Alessandro Rubini's avatarAlessandro Rubini <>
parent 6d351515
......@@ -68,8 +68,10 @@ get_current_state_table_item(struct pp_instance *ppi)
struct pp_state_table_item *ip = ppi->current_state_item;;
/* Avoid searching if we already know where we are */
ppi->is_new_state = 0;
if (ip && ip->state == ppi->state)
return ip;
ppi->is_new_state = 1;
/* a linear search is affordable up to a few dozen items */
for (ip = pp_state_table; ip->state != PPS_END_OF_TABLE; ip++)
......@@ -86,7 +88,6 @@ get_current_state_table_item(struct pp_instance *ppi)
static int leave_current_state(struct pp_instance *ppi)
ppi->state = ppi->next_state;
ppi->is_new_state = 1;
ppi->flags &= ~PPI_FLAGS_WAITING;
pp_diag_fsm(ppi, ppi->current_state_item->name, STATE_LEAVE, 0);
......@@ -233,7 +234,6 @@ int pp_state_machine(struct pp_instance *ppi, uint8_t *packet, int plen)
if (ppi->state != ppi->next_state)
return leave_current_state(ppi);
ppi->is_new_state = 0;
pp_diag_fsm(ppi, ip->name, STATE_LOOP, 0);
return ppi->next_delay;
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment