linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] staging: iio: accel: Remove unnecessary comments and add suitable suffix

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:   Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:53:12 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
Cc:     21cnbao@...il.com, jic23@...nel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        lars@...afoo.de, Michael.Hennerich@...log.com,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pmeerw@...erw.net, knaack.h@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] staging: iio: accel: Remove unnecessary comments and
 add suitable suffix

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:24:57PM +0530, Himanshu Jha wrote:
> Remove some unnecessary comments by giving appropriate name to macros.
> Therefore, add _REG suffix for control registers. Also, align function
> arguments to match open parentheses using tabs.
> Group the control register and register field macros together.
> 
> Blank line before some returns improves code readability.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>

The most obvious response is that this needs to be broken up into
multiple patches.

I think I liked almost all the comments...

> -/* Output, power supply */
> -#define ADIS16201_SUPPLY_OUT     0x02
> +#define ADIS16201_SUPPLY_OUT_REG		0x02

To me it seems useful to know that we're talking about the power supply.

Adding _REG to the name seems not terribly useful and it makes the name
longer so we're going to run into the 80 character limit.  I just
checked and this patch does add some checkpatch warnings.

But aligning the arguments is fine, deleting unused macros is fine,
adding blank lines is fine.

>  static int adis16201_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>  {
> -	int ret;
> -	struct adis *st;
>  	struct iio_dev *indio_dev;
> +	struct adis *st;
> +	int ret;

Making this reverse Christmas tree is fine.  But these things should all
be done in separate patches.

regards,
dan carpenter