linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] usb: gadget: net2280: Pass checkpacth.pl 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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1405191531010.1538-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Mon, 19 May 2014 15:39:58 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>
cc:	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <joe@...ches.com>,
	<auttamchandani@...icube.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] usb: gadget: net2280: Pass checkpacth.pl test

On Mon, 19 May 2014, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:

> Fix Code Style using checkpatch.pl criteria
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>

Not really necessary, although this doesn't hurt.

It's notable that scattered in amongst all the checkpatch-related
changes are a few things that actually alter the meaning of the code.  
Mixing things up like that isn't a good idea.

Also, there seem to be several questionable changes:

> @@ -236,7 +234,7 @@ net2280_enable (struct usb_ep *_ep, const struct usb_endpoint_descriptor *desc)
>  			return -ERANGE;
>  		}
>  	}
> -	ep->is_iso = (tmp == USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_ISOC) ? 1 : 0;
> +	ep->is_iso = !!(tmp == USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_ISOC);

Getting rid of the "? 1 : 0" part is fine, but why introduce the "!!"?  
Don't you realize that the equality test will always produce a 0 or 1 
result?

>  
>  /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
>  
> -static struct usb_request *
> -net2280_alloc_request (struct usb_ep *_ep, gfp_t gfp_flags)
> +static struct usb_request *net2280_alloc_request(struct usb_ep *_ep,
> +							gfp_t gfp_flags)

What's with the extreme indentation on the continuation line?  The 
style used here is for continuation lines to be indented by two stops 
relative to the first line.

> @@ -613,20 +609,21 @@ write_fifo (struct net2280_ep *ep, struct usb_request *req)
>   * NOTE:  also used in cases where that erratum doesn't apply:
>   * where the host wrote "too much" data to us.
>   */
> -static void out_flush (struct net2280_ep *ep)
> +static void out_flush(struct net2280_ep *ep)
>  {
>  	u32	__iomem *statp;
>  	u32	tmp;
>  
> -	ASSERT_OUT_NAKING (ep);
> +	ASSERT_OUT_NAKING(ep);
>  
>  	statp = &ep->regs->ep_stat;
>  	writel(BIT(DATA_OUT_PING_TOKEN_INTERRUPT) |
>  		BIT(DATA_PACKET_RECEIVED_INTERRUPT)
>  		, statp);
>  	writel(BIT(FIFO_FLUSH), statp);
> -	mb ();
> -	tmp = readl (statp);
> +	/* Make sure stap is written before readded back */

If you're going to add a comment, add least use correct spelling and 
grammar.

Alan Stern

--
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/