linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] staging: pi433: Rename enum optionOnOff in rf69

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: <401fb0b7-48a9-dfc9-481b-d4e31f0ed9b5@smarthome-wolf.de>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:37:51 +0200
From:   Marcus Wolf <marcus.wolf@...rthome-wolf.de>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux@...f-Entwicklungen.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] staging: pi433: Rename enum optionOnOff in
 rf69_enum.h



Am 04.12.2017 um 12:37 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 01:17:37PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> Perhaps choose different function names if you want?  You could do it
>> as several patches:
>>
>> patch 1: change types to bool
>> patch 2: sed -e '/ == optionOn//'
>> patch 3: split the functions into two functions
>> patch 4: delete optionOnOff enum
>>
>> patches 1 and 2 could be merged together (your choice).
>>
> 
> Markus says that optionOn is used by user space so my you won't be able
> to remove these entirely.  But as much as possible we should internally.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 

Hi Dan, hi Simon,

I think, it's a pretty nice idea to remove th optionOnOff and replace it 
by bool.

<history>
In former times, the variables in the config struct had very different 
names - not containing "enable". Therefore optionOnOff was used to make 
absolutely clear (in user space), wheter something was switched on, or off.
Now the variable have nice names, so bool is fine, even better now :-)
</history>

I would suggest not to split the amp-functions but to rename them, to 
also contain an enable:
rf69_set_amp_X_enable()

To avoid misunderstandings maybe it is better to remove the enable from 
enable_address_filtering, since here we can't go with bool.

Thanks a lot for the ideas and improvements :-)

Marcus