linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: Use BIT() macro instead of hex value

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: <20200323073518.GK4650@kadam>
Date:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:35:18 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>
Cc:     Forest Bond <forest@...ttletooquiet.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Malcolm Priestley <tvboxspy@...il.com>,
        Mukesh Ojha <mojha@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin25111998@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: Use BIT() macro instead of hex value

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 06:10:56PM +0100, Oscar Carter wrote:
> -#define RSR_ADDRBROAD       0x80
> -#define RSR_ADDRMULTI       0x40
> +#define RSR_ADDRBROAD       BIT(7)
> +#define RSR_ADDRMULTI       BIT(6)
>  #define RSR_ADDRUNI         0x00
> -#define RSR_IVLDTYP         0x20        /* invalid packet type */
> -#define RSR_IVLDLEN         0x10        /* invalid len (> 2312 byte) */
> -#define RSR_BSSIDOK         0x08
> -#define RSR_CRCOK           0x04
> -#define RSR_BCNSSIDOK       0x02
> -#define RSR_ADDROK          0x01
> +#define RSR_IVLDTYP         BIT(5)	/* invalid packet type */
> +#define RSR_IVLDLEN         BIT(4)	/* invalid len (> 2312 byte) */
> +#define RSR_BSSIDOK         BIT(3)
> +#define RSR_CRCOK           BIT(2)
> +#define RSR_BCNSSIDOK       BIT(1)
> +#define RSR_ADDROK          BIT(0)

I like these ones because I do think the new version is more clear
now.

>  /* Bits in the EnhanceCFG_0 register */
>  #define EnCFG_BBType_a		0x00
> -#define EnCFG_BBType_b		0x01
> -#define EnCFG_BBType_g		0x02
> -#define EnCFG_BBType_MASK	0x03
> -#define EnCFG_ProtectMd		0x20
> +#define EnCFG_BBType_b		BIT(0)
> +#define EnCFG_BBType_g		BIT(1)
> +#define EnCFG_BBType_MASK	(BIT(0) | BIT(1))
> +#define EnCFG_ProtectMd		BIT(5)

Probably EnCFG_BBType_MASK should be defined using the other defines.

#define EnCFG_BBType_MASK (EnCFG_BBType_b | EnCFG_BBType_g)

Otherwise it looks good.  Can you change that one thing and then add
my Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>

regards,
dan carpenter