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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:59:58 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [x86] is checkpatch.pl broken [Ingo Molnar - Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:22:50PM +0100] | | * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote: | | > orig: | > mbr_base = (buf_base+sector_size-1) & ~(sector_size-1); | > new (could be): | > mbr_base = (buf_base + sector_size - 1) & ~(sector_size - 1); | > | > Is a new version that bad? | | it's certainly acceptable as newly introduced code but only borderline | better than the original code. I'd suggest to stick to the problem areas | that checkpatch.pl complains about at the moment - we have really | obvious bad looking pieces of code that checkpatch.pl reports, and going | after the borderline cases will only result in coding-style lawyering | and flamewars, not any genuine increase in code quality ;-) | | for example: | | arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c: | | total: 19 errors, 2 warnings, 98 lines checked | | or: | | arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c: | | total: 56 errors, 31 warnings, 2402 lines checked | | and once we have nothing but the borderline cases and if we get really | bored we can start coding style flamewars ;-) | | Ingo | Hi Ingo, here is a first for x86 tree - Cyrill - --- From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> Subject: [x86] coding style cleanup for kernel/bootflag.c This patch eliminates checkpatch.pl complains on bootflag.c Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> --- arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c b/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c index 0b98605..1697e49 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c @@ -24,30 +24,29 @@ int sbf_port __initdata = -1; /* set via acpi_boot_init() */ - static int __init parity(u8 v) { int x = 0; int i; - - for(i=0;i<8;i++) - { - x^=(v&1); - v>>=1; + + for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) { + x ^= (v & 1); + v >>= 1; } + return x; } static void __init sbf_write(u8 v) { unsigned long flags; - if(sbf_port != -1) - { + if (sbf_port != -1) { v &= ~SBF_PARITY; - if(!parity(v)) - v|=SBF_PARITY; + if (!parity(v)) + v |= SBF_PARITY; - printk(KERN_INFO "Simple Boot Flag at 0x%x set to 0x%x\n", sbf_port, v); + printk(KERN_INFO "Simple Boot Flag at 0x%x set to 0x%x\n", + sbf_port, v); spin_lock_irqsave(&rtc_lock, flags); CMOS_WRITE(v, sbf_port); @@ -59,31 +58,38 @@ static u8 __init sbf_read(void) { u8 v; unsigned long flags; - if(sbf_port == -1) + + if (sbf_port == -1) return 0; + spin_lock_irqsave(&rtc_lock, flags); v = CMOS_READ(sbf_port); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rtc_lock, flags); + return v; } static int __init sbf_value_valid(u8 v) { - if(v&SBF_RESERVED) /* Reserved bits */ + if (v & SBF_RESERVED) /* Reserved bits */ return 0; - if(!parity(v)) + if (!parity(v)) return 0; + return 1; } static int __init sbf_init(void) { u8 v; - if(sbf_port == -1) + + if (sbf_port == -1) return 0; + v = sbf_read(); - if(!sbf_value_valid(v)) - printk(KERN_WARNING "Simple Boot Flag value 0x%x read from CMOS RAM was invalid\n",v); + if (!sbf_value_valid(v)) + printk(KERN_WARNING "Simple Boot Flag value 0x%x read from " + "CMOS RAM was invalid\n", v); v &= ~SBF_RESERVED; v &= ~SBF_BOOTING; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists