linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iio: light: add driver for bh1730fvc chips

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VeEXdUMw2Skr=jDjUL+Rz=Xu-0S3Mw-X6MvjAXet974hw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 3 Mar 2018 17:44:44 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc:     Pierre Bourdon <delroth@...gle.com>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iio: light: add driver for bh1730fvc chips

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:06:09 +0200
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Pierre Bourdon <delroth@...gle.com> wrote:

Better to address even minors before submission.

>> > +       if (itime <= 0 || itime > 255)
>>
>> Just side note: Suprisingly how many in_range() implementations we
>> have in kernel...
> I guess one of those things that is so simple it's not worth having
> one true in_range to rule them all ;)

We have already several implementations of the macro.

>> > +static int bh1730_adjust_gain(struct bh1730_data *bh1730)
>> > +{
>> > +       int visible, ir, highest, gain, ret, i;
>>
>> int visible, ir, highest, gain;
>> unsigned int i;
>
> Is there a strong reason for this one that I'm missing?
> (beyond personal taste!)

First of all, I'm far from being fan of mixing int ret into other
variable definitions.

unsigned int i OTOH shows explicitly that we have counter which is not
supposed to be negative.

int i in most of the cases will work, so, it's a minor. I'm not
insisting, though having counter variable on separate line is also a
good thing.

In general, having different things in one line is a bad idea for my opinion.

>> int ret;

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko