linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: ks7010: fix styling WARNINGs

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:   Tue, 01 Aug 2017 09:22:56 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Ashish Kalra <eashishkalra@...il.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        wsa@...-dreams.de, driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: ks7010: fix styling WARNINGs

On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 17:11 +0100, Ashish Kalra wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Ashish Kalra <eashishkalra@...il.com>

Still many issues with this patch submission:

o no commit message
o no version of patch submission in subject line

And other issues below:

> ---
>  drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> Trivial style changes. There are still "line over 80 characters"
> checkpatch.pl warnings, but I think they are best left alone as
> breaking these could hurt readability

This message should go above the --- line and the
version information about what changed between
each submission should go below the --- line.

> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c b/drivers/staging/ks7010/ks7010_sdio.c
[]
> @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
>   *   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>   *   published by the Free Software Foundation.
>   */
> -

Why is this line removed?

>  #include <linux/firmware.h>
>  #include <linux/mmc/card.h>
>  #include <linux/mmc/sdio_func.h>
> @@ -32,19 +31,39 @@
>  };
>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(sdio, ks7010_sdio_ids);
>  
> -#define inc_txqhead(priv) \
> -	(priv->tx_dev.qhead = (priv->tx_dev.qhead + 1) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> -#define inc_txqtail(priv) \
> -	(priv->tx_dev.qtail = (priv->tx_dev.qtail + 1) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> -#define cnt_txqbody(priv) \
> -	(((priv->tx_dev.qtail + TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE) - (priv->tx_dev.qhead)) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> -
> -#define inc_rxqhead(priv) \
> -	(priv->rx_dev.qhead = (priv->rx_dev.qhead + 1) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> -#define inc_rxqtail(priv) \
> -	(priv->rx_dev.qtail = (priv->rx_dev.qtail + 1) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> -#define cnt_rxqbody(priv) \
> -	(((priv->rx_dev.qtail + RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE) - (priv->rx_dev.qhead)) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE)
> +static int inc_txqhead(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	priv->tx_dev.qhead = (priv->tx_dev.qhead + 1) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int inc_txqtail(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	priv->tx_dev.qtail = (priv->tx_dev.qtail + 1) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int inc_rxqtail(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	priv->rx_dev.qtail = (priv->rx_dev.qtail + 1) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int inc_rxqhead(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	priv->rx_dev.qhead = (priv->rx_dev.qhead + 1) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE;
> +	return 0;
> +}

Why are the functions above not returning void?

> +
> +static int cnt_rxqbody(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	return  (((priv->rx_dev.qtail + RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE) - (priv->rx_dev.qhead)) % RX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE);
> +}
> +
> +static int cnt_txqbody(struct ks_wlan_private *priv)
> +{
> +	return (((priv->tx_dev.qtail + TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE) - (priv->tx_dev.qhead)) % TX_DEVICE_BUFF_SIZE);
> +}

Why are these 2 functions above not returning unsigned int?