linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] staging: pi433: Split rf69_set_crc

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]

Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:07:20 +0200
From:   Marcus Wolf <marcus.wolf@...rthome-wolf.de>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux@...f-Entwicklungen.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] staging: pi433: Split rf69_set_crc_enabled into
 two functions



Am 06.12.2017 um 11:37 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 06.12.2017 um 00:08 schrieb Simon Sandström:
>>> Splits rf69_set_crc_enabled(dev, enabled) into
>>> rf69_enable_crc(dev) and rf69_disable_crc(dev).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>    drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c     | 18 ++++++------------
>>>    drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.h     |  4 ++--
>>>    3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
>>> index 2ae19ac565d1..614eec7dd904 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
>>> @@ -216,7 +216,16 @@ rf69_set_rx_cfg(struct pi433_device *dev, struct pi433_rx_cfg *rx_cfg)
>>>    			return ret;
>>>    	}
>>>    	SET_CHECKED(rf69_set_adressFiltering(dev->spi, rx_cfg->enable_address_filtering));
>>> -	SET_CHECKED(rf69_set_crc_enable	    (dev->spi, rx_cfg->enable_crc));
>>> +
>>> +	if (rx_cfg->enable_crc == OPTION_ON) {
>>> +		ret = rf69_enable_crc(dev->spi);
>>> +		if (ret < 0)
>>> +			return ret;
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		ret = rf69_disable_crc(dev->spi);
>>> +		if (ret < 0)
>>> +			return ret;
>>> +	}
>>
>> Why don't you use SET_CHECKED(...)?
>>
> 
> Marcus, please don't introduce new uses of SET_CHECKED().  It has a
> hidden return in it which is against kernel style and introduces very
> predictable and avoidable bugs.  For example, in probe().

Ah ok.

Thanks for clarifiytion!

What a pitty - another bunch of extra lines of code...

Or is there an other construction, allowing for one line per register 
change? Something like

	ret = rf69_set_xyz(...); if (ret) return ret;
	ret = rf69_set_abc(...); if (ret) return ret;

is pretty ugly and voids the style guide...

Thx,

Marcus