linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 5/5] net: dsa: lan9303: refactor lan9303_get_ethtool

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2017 22:26:16 +0200
From:   Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 5/5] net: dsa: lan9303: refactor
 lan9303_get_ethtool_stats

Den 03. aug. 2017 20:04, skrev Florian Fainelli:
> On 08/03/2017 02:45 AM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote:
>> In lan9303_get_ethtool_stats: Get rid of 0x400 constant magic
>> by using new lan9303_read_switch_reg() inside loop.
>> Reduced scope of two variables.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Egil Hjelmeland <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
>>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c b/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c
>> index 6f409755ba1a..5aaa46146c27 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/lan9303-core.c
>> @@ -435,6 +435,13 @@ static int lan9303_write_switch_port(
>>   		chip, LAN9303_SWITCH_PORT_REG(port, regnum), val);
>>   }
>>   
>> +static int lan9303_read_switch_port(
>> +	struct lan9303 *chip, int port, u16 regnum, u32 *val)
>> +{
> 
> This indentation is really funny, why not just break it up that way:
> 
> static int lan9303_read_switch_port(struct lan9303 *chip, int port
> 				    u16 regnum, u32 *val)
> {
> }
> 
> This applies to patch 5 as well, other than that:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
> 

Because it is the form that passes scripts/checkpatch.pl which I find
easiest to type and maintain.

- No need to fine tune spaces.
- No need to change indentation if later renaming function to name of
   different length.

Do you have any references backing up your claim this is wrong?

Cheers
Egil