linux-kernel - Re: unnecessary test?

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]

Date:   Wed, 6 Jun 2018 21:43:21 +0900 (JST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     perex@...ex.cz
cc:     tiwai@...e.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: unnecessary test?



On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Julia Lawall wrote:

> In the file sound/pci/ctxfi/cthw20k1.c, the function daio_mgr_dao_init
> contains:
>
> set_field(&ctl->spoctl, SPOCTL_OS << (idx*8),
>           ((conf >> 3) & 0x1) ? 2 : 2); /* Raw */
>
> Could the second argument just be 2?  It's true that the preceeding call
> contains conf >> ..., but in a more useful way, so perhaps it could be
> useful for uniformity?

There is similar code in daio_mgr_dao_init in sound/pci/ctxfi/cthw20k2.c:

        	set_field(&ctl->txctl[idx], ATXCTL_RAW,
                         ((conf >> 3) & 0x1) ? 0 : 0);


julia