linux-kernel - Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: ks7010: Unnecessary parentheses are removed.

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

Date:   Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:18:35 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:     Arushi Singhal <arushisinghal19971997@...il.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: ks7010: Unnecessary
 parentheses are removed.

On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 19:58 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 23:56 +0530, Arushi Singhal wrote:
> > > Unnecessary parentheses should be avoided as reported by checkpatch.pl.
> > > Remove unnecessary parentheses, as reported by checkpatch as are nicer
> > > to read.For example:-
> > > It's often nicer to read if &(foo[0]) is converted to foo like:
> > >      memcpy(&(ap->bssid[0]), &(ap_info->bssid[0]), ETH_ALEN);
> > >      memcpy(ap->bssid, ap_info->bssid, ETH_ALEN);
> > []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_hostif.c
> > []
> > > @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ int get_ap_information(struct ks_wlan_private *priv, struct ap_info_t *ap_info,
> > >  	memset(ap, 0, sizeof(struct local_ap_t));
> > > 
> > >  	/* bssid */
> > > -	memcpy(&(ap->bssid[0]), &(ap_info->bssid[0]), ETH_ALEN);
> > > +	memcpy(&ap->bssid[0], &ap_info->bssid[0], ETH_ALEN);
> > 
> > This code doesn't match the suggested style of
> > your commit message.
> 
> Is what is suggested in the commit message correct?  That is, is the 0th
> element of an array always at the same address as a pointer to the array
> itself?

I think your wording is a little fuzzy.

Assuming you mean not a pointer to the array,
but the array itself, yes.