linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] rtc-ab-b5ze-s3: Delete an unnecessary variable in _abb5zes3_rtc_set

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: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1601031827340.2074@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date:	Sun, 3 Jan 2016 18:29:24 +0100 (CET)
From:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, rtc-linux@...glegroups.com,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] rtc-ab-b5ze-s3: Delete an unnecessary variable in
 _abb5zes3_rtc_set_timer()

On Sun, 3 Jan 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> >>  	ret = regmap_update_bits(data->regmap, ABB5ZES3_REG_TIM_CLK,
> >> -				 mask, ABB5ZES3_REG_TIM_CLK_TAC1);
> >> +				 ABB5ZES3_REG_TIM_CLK_TAC0
> >> +				 | ABB5ZES3_REG_TIM_CLK_TAC1,
> >> +				 ABB5ZES3_REG_TIM_CLK_TAC1);
> > 
> > This doesn't seem like an improvement.
> 
> Interesting …
> 
> 
> > The concept (mask) has disappeared,
> 
> I suggest to drop another local variable.
> Can the operator "Bitwise OR" be sufficient to indicate the concept "mask"?
> 
> 
> > the binary operation is strangely broken,
> 
> Do you prefer an other source code formatting within the usual line length range?
> 
> 
> > and the function call has one more line of arguments,
> 
> How should several long preprocessor symbols be combined together with indentation
> so that they will fit into the limit of 80 characters?
> 
> 
> > which all look sort of the same and thus are hard to understand.
> 
> Is this an usual consequence from an ordinary name pattern?

The original code was better.  No 80 character problem, easy to 
distinguish one argument from another, moderately meaningful variable 
name, etc.

julia