linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: Define constants for FUNC operations

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:   Mon, 5 Mar 2018 09:19:24 +1030
From:   Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@...t42.net>
To:     Micha?? K??pie?? <kernel@...pniu.pl>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: Define constants for
 FUNC operations

On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 08:44:26PM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:08:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > And plain 0 doesn't look right in this concept (something like (0 <<
> > > 0) would probably do it).
> > 
> > Given that all other definitions are in terms of BIT(), to my eye "(0 << 0)"
> > looks as much out of place as plain "0".  However, if the convention in this
> > case would be to use the former then I have no objections.  I presume the
> > "(0 << 0)" idea comes from the fact that BIT() ultimately expands to some
> > form of shift.
> 
> Yes, I would guess so.  The syntax suggested by Andy looked odd and
> superfluous to me at first, but grepping the tree for this construct
> seems to suggest that it is a pretty common thing.  So no problem, I
> will tweak this in v2.  I understand I should apply the same concept in
> these cases:
> 
> +/* Constants related to FUNC_BACKLIGHT */
> +#define FEAT_BACKLIGHT_POWER		BIT(2)
> +#define STATE_BACKLIGHT_OFF		(BIT(0) | BIT(1))
> +#define STATE_BACKLIGHT_ON		0
> 
> +#define FEAT_RADIO_LED			BIT(5)
> +#define STATE_RADIO_LED_OFF		0
> +#define STATE_RADIO_LED_ON		BIT(5)
> 
> Right?

I suspect so.

Regards
  jonathan