linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] Staging: iio: accel : sca3000

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4D9D8ACA.5050309@cam.ac.uk>
Date:	Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:58:34 +0100
From:	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@....ac.uk>
To:	Belisko Marek <marek.belisko@...il.com>
CC:	nijs.michael@...il.com, gregkh@...e.de, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Staging: iio: accel : sca3000_ring: Fixing code styling
 issues

On 04/06/11 20:24, Belisko Marek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:14 PM,  <nijs.michael@...il.com> wrote:
>> From: Michael Nijs <nijs.michael@...il.com>
>>
>> Fixed code styling issue.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Nijs <nijs.michael@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c |    2 +-
>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
>> index fd1c844..c872fdd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
>> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ static int sca3000_rip_hw_rb(struct iio_ring_buffer *r,
>>
>>        /* Convert byte order and shift to default resolution */
>>        if (st->bpse == 11) {
>> -               samples = (s16 *)(*data+1);
>> +               samples = (s16*)(*data+1);
> Strange. My output(latest 2.6.39-rc2):
> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f drivers/staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c
> ERROR: "(foo*)" should be "(foo *)"
> #94: FILE: staging/iio/accel/sca3000_ring.c:94:
> +		samples = (s16*)(*data+1);
> 
> So for me it seems it was correct and you post patch with change where
> checkpatch will bark. Or am I missing something?
>>                for (i = 0; i < (num_read/2); i++) {
>>                        samples[i] = be16_to_cpup(
>>                                        (__be16 *)&(samples[i]));
There are some much nastier issues with that section of code. If nothing else
I dread to think what be16_to_cpup does with unaligned pointers.  There's a
rewrite of this code in my local tree anyway so either way the issue will probably
go away shortly!

Thanks anyway.

Jonathan
--
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/