linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ssb: main.c: This patch removes unnecessary return statement using spatch tool

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:   Fri, 6 Jan 2017 23:39:20 +0100
From:   Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
To:     Rahul Krishnan <mrahul.krishnan@...il.com>
Cc:     Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ssb: main.c: This patch removes unnecessary return
 statement using spatch tool

Hi Rahul,

On 6 January 2017 at 16:20, Rahul Krishnan <mrahul.krishnan@...il.com> wrote:
> This patch removes unnecessary return statement using spatch.
> Signed-off-by: Rahul Krishnan <mrahul.krishnan@...il.com>

Please work on simplifying & making topic more accurate.

You can drop "main.c:" and "This patch".

I don't think this patch really "removes unnecessary return". It looks
like you just dropped assignment/calculation done just before
returning value. That "using spatch tool" part is also misleading. You
don't really use that tool for removing it. More likely it was
noticed/suggested that that tool you use.

Please use commit message for describing your change and don't just
copy & paste topic. You can e.g. put into about "spatch" there
(instead of the topic).

> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -/*
> + patch /home/rahul/git/kernels/staging/drivers//*
>   * Sonics Silicon Backplane
>   * Subsystem core
>   *

Huh? Looks definitely wrong and I don't think it even compiles
anymore! Make sure to compile code after your change, to make sure it
does & there isn't any new warning.

> @@ -1272,9 +1272,7 @@ u32 ssb_admatch_size(u32 adm)
>         default:
>                 SSB_WARN_ON(1);
>         }
> -       size = (1 << (size + 1));
> -
> -       return size;
> +       return (1 << (size + 1));
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ssb_admatch_size);

Please rework your patch, *test it* and resend V2.

-- 
Rafał