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: <9e438a22-4371-551d-5e71-9803e3f06a44@smarthome-wolf.de>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:22:06 +0200
From:   Marcus Wolf <marcus.wolf@...rthome-wolf.de>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>,
        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 21:15 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 08:37:51PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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()
> 
> That's a bad name, because it doesn't just enable it also disables.
> Please split them.
> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
> 

Same applies to all other stuff, that's using optionOnOff:
rf69_set_sync_enable(optionOn/Off) enables and disbales sync,
rf69_set_crc_enable(optionOn/Off) enables and disables crc,
...

In my opinion, if we want perfect clarity, we should stay with optionOnOff.
If we are ok, if rf69_set_sync_enable(false) disables sync,
in my opinion, we also have to be ok, if rf69_set_amp_X_enable(false) 
disables the amp.

Cheers,
Marcus