linux-kernel - Re: unnecessary test?

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:   Wed, 06 Jun 2018 15:04:37 +0200
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     "Julia Lawall" <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:     <perex@...ex.cz>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: unnecessary test?

On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 14:39:05 +0200,
Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> In the file sound/pci/ctxfi/cthw20k1.c, the function daio_mgr_dao_init
> contains:
> 
> set_field(&ctl->spoctl, SPOCTL_OS << (idx*8),
>           ((conf >> 3) & 0x1) ? 2 : 2); /* Raw */
> 
> Could the second argument just be 2?  It's true that the preceeding call
> contains conf >> ..., but in a more useful way, so perhaps it could be
> useful for uniformity?

I guess this is a typo of "2 : 0".  The code seems toggling the
control bit depending on the S/PDIF passthru mode.  It might be
reversed, but I bet 1 for non-audio from a common sense.

Ditto for cthw20k1.c.  This one is likely 1, not 2, though.


thanks,

Takashi