linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging:ks7010:ks_wlan_net.c: unneeded type casting removed

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: <CAH6sp9P2Dk-w_oVg1ZLbHh9yqJ6h=Qar5qeqco3B2W_0xCe+LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 12:09:57 +0200
From:   Frans Klaver <fransklaver@...il.com>
To:     AndyS <lkd1024@...l.ru>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        driverdevel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, shiva@...ev.nl,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging:ks7010:ks_wlan_net.c: unneeded type casting removed

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:09 AM, AndyS <lkd1024@...l.ru> wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] Staging:ks7010:ks_wlan_net.c: unneeded type casting removed

[PATCH] staging: ks7010: remove unneeded type casting

> removed undesired type casting. Warning was raised by checkpatch.pl
> This patch is for eudyptula challenge
>
> Signed-off-by: AndyS <lkd1024@...l.ru>

Use your real name, please.

> ---
>  drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_net.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_net.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_net.c
> index 8aa12e813bd7..e176876665df 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_net.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks_wlan_net.c
> @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static int ks_wlan_set_freq(struct net_device *dev,
>         /* for SLEEP MODE */
>         /* If setting by frequency, convert to a channel */
>         if ((fwrq->e == 1) &&
> -           (fwrq->m >= (int)2.412e8) && (fwrq->m <= (int)2.487e8)) {
> +           (fwrq->m >= 2.412e8) && (fwrq->m <= 2.487e8)) {

Do we really want to compare against a double value?

Frans