linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] intel-oaktrail: Clean up dead code

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]

Message-ID: <20171009204546.GA2839@inspiron>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:45:46 +0100
From:   Christos Gkekas <chris.gekas@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel-oaktrail: Clean up dead code

On 09/10/17 13:21:17 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Christos Gkekas <chris.gekas@...il.com> wrote:
> > A couple of macros are unused and need to be removed.
> > Also variable percent is unsigned so checking whether it is less than
> > zero is redundant.
> 
> > -#define OT_EC_CAMERA_MASK      (1 << 0)
> >  #define OT_EC_BT_MASK          (1 << 1)
> >  #define OT_EC_GPS_MASK         (1 << 2)
> >  #define OT_EC_WIFI_MASK                (1 << 3)
> >  #define OT_EC_WWAN_MASK                (1 << 4)
> > -#define OT_EC_TS_MASK          (1 << 5)
> 
> While they are unused they won't bring any additional code to the binary.
> The rationale to leave them is to have a bit descriptions in the code,
> so, anyone who is in possession of that old and rare hardware can do
> some tests or amendments without searching looking to documentation.
> 
> 
> > -       if (percent < 0 || percent > OT_EC_BL_BRIGHTNESS_MAX)
> > +       if (percent > OT_EC_BL_BRIGHTNESS_MAX)
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> 
> While it's true, doesn't compiler take care about that?
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/28/206
> 
> So, unfortunately I have no reason to take it.
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

Fair enough, thanks for your time and feedback.

Regards,
Christos