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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 15:31:13 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.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 8/6/18 3:16 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Oh, yeah. I like it better what Joe suggested.

Let me send v2, shortly.

Thanks
--
Gustavo