linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: acer-wmi: refactor function has

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: <CAHp75VdrmVgGSTeT+rzyQbKwJyseq06b6s+d8aXCvimGgL3uMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 23:16:31 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc:     "Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>, Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: acer-wmi: refactor function has_cap

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
> Refactor function has_cap in order to avoid returning integer
> values, when instead it should return booleans.
>
> This code was detected with the help of Coccinelle.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> index 8952173..ff1689d 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/acer-wmi.c
> @@ -672,10 +672,7 @@ static void __init find_quirks(void)
>
>  static bool has_cap(u32 cap)
>  {
> -       if ((interface->capability & cap) != 0)
> -               return 1;
> -
> -       return 0;
> +       return (interface->capability & cap) != 0;
>  }

Thanks, as Joe mentioned even != 0 part is not needed (followed by
unneeded parens), though I would let it be (one line is good enough to
me) if there will be no strong preferences.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko