linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS

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: <CAGOxZ52N=NLCZndc+sS1ym4zsdutk3keBv31-KNwe1u1bEfreg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:14:37 +0530
From:   Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...il.com>
To:     Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "vinholikatti@...il.com" <vinholikatti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

Hi,

Ping!!!

Should I drop this patch and send another one which removes UFS_BIT() macro?

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com> wrote:
> Hi Bart,
> Thanks for your review.
>
> On 08/28/2017 09:15 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:49 +0530, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>>> This entire file uses UFS_BIT macro for bits definition, expect for few
>>> places. This patch convert those defines to use UFS_BIT macro to be aligned
>>> with reset of the file.
>>
>> This is the definition of the UFS_BIT() macro I found in
>> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h:
>>
>> #define UFS_BIT(x)    (1L << (x))
>>
>> Using this macro makes code longer instead of shorter and does not improve
>> code readability. Is this macro really useful? Wouldn't it be better to
>> remove the UFS_BIT() macro instead of introducing more uses of it?
>>
> Well, the intension of this patch is to make use of already existing
> UFS_BIT() macro.
>
> I am not aware of the history why this macro was created at first place.
>
> Well, it does improve code readability, for me at least, no need for one
> to do a calculation to see which bit it is, as we pass _bit_ number to
> UFS_BIT.
>
> I am totally okay, if you or other reviewers suggests me to change
> UFS_BIT to actual bit position, something like the original case, which
> this patch is trying to change.
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bart.
>>
> Thanks!
> Alim



-- 
Regards,
Alim