linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Staging: rtl8188eu: Bool tests don't need comparisons

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 13 Sep 2015 07:32:53 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	Shraddha Barke <shraddha.6596@...il.com>
cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Staging: rtl8188eu: Bool tests don't need
 comparisons



On Sun, 13 Sep 2015, Shraddha Barke wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>       On Sat, 12 Sep 2015, Shraddha Barke wrote:
> 
>       > This patch removes comparisons to true/false values on bool
>       variables.
>       >
>       > Changes in v3-
>       >  Fix made manually
>       >
>       > Signed-off-by: Shraddha Barke <shraddha.6596@...il.com>
>       > ---
>       >  drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c       | 12
>       +++++------
>       >  drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_ioctl_set.c | 28
>       +++++++++++++-------------
>       >  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>       >
>       > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
>       b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
>       > index 001a2f3..591ac5d 100644
>       > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
>       > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
>       > @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ u8 rtw_sitesurvey_cmd(struct adapter 
>       *padapter, struct ndis_802_11_ssid *ssid,
>       >       struct cmd_priv         *pcmdpriv = &padapter->cmdpriv;
>       >       struct mlme_priv        *pmlmepriv =
>       &padapter->mlmepriv;
>       >
>       > -     if (check_fwstate(pmlmepriv, _FW_LINKED) == true)
>       > +     if (check_fwstate(pmlmepriv, _FW_LINKED))
>       >               rtw_lps_ctrl_wk_cmd(padapter, LPS_CTRL_SCAN,
>       1);
>       >
>       >       ph2c = kzalloc(sizeof(struct cmd_obj), GFP_ATOMIC);
>       > @@ -903,7 +903,7 @@ static void dynamic_chk_wk_hdl(struct
>       adapter *padapter, u8 *pbuf, int sz)
>       >       pmlmepriv = &(padapter->mlmepriv);
>       >
>       >  #ifdef CONFIG_88EU_AP_MODE
>       > -     if (check_fwstate(pmlmepriv, WIFI_AP_STATE) == true)
>       > +     if (check_fwstate(pmlmepriv, WIFI_AP_STATE))
>       >               expire_timeout_chk(padapter);
>       >  #endif
>       >
>       > @@ -920,13 +920,13 @@ static void lps_ctrl_wk_hdl(struct
>       adapter *padapter, u8 lps_ctrl_type)
>       >       u8      mstatus;
>       >
>       >
>       > -     if ((check_fwstate(pmlmepriv, WIFI_ADHOC_MASTER_STATE)
>       == true) ||
>       > -         (check_fwstate(pmlmepriv, WIFI_ADHOC_STATE) ==
>       true))
>       > +     if ((check_fwstate(pmlmepriv, WIFI_ADHOC_MASTER_STATE))
>       ||
>       > +         (check_fwstate(pmlmepriv, WIFI_ADHOC_STATE)))
> 
>       You don't need to keep the parentheses.
> 
>       julia
> 
> I don't see extra parentheses. Aren't all of them needed to improve
> readability?

You have basically ((foo(1,2,3)) || (foo(4,5,6)))

I don't think that is more readable than (foo(1,2,3) || foo(4,5,6))

Actually, the parentheses weren't really needed before, but they are even 
less useful now.

julia