linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: Define EnCFG_BBType

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, 30 Mar 2020 14:27:14 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>
Cc:     Forest Bond <forest@...ttletooquiet.net>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: Define EnCFG_BBType_MASK as OR between
 previous defines

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 05:58:02PM +0100, Oscar Carter wrote:
> Define the EnCFG_BBType_MASK bit as an OR operation between two previous
> defines instead of using the OR between two new BIT macros. Thus, the
> code is more clear.
> 
> Fixes: a74081b44291 ("staging: vt6656: Use BIT() macro instead of hex value")
> Signed-off-by: Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6656/mac.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/mac.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/mac.h
> index c532b27de37f..b01d9ee8677e 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/mac.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/mac.h
> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@
>  #define EnCFG_BBType_a		0x00
>  #define EnCFG_BBType_b		BIT(0)
>  #define EnCFG_BBType_g		BIT(1)
> -#define EnCFG_BBType_MASK	(BIT(0) | BIT(1))
> +#define EnCFG_BBType_MASK	(EnCFG_BBType_b | EnCFG_BBType_g)

This does not "fix" anything, like your "Fixes:" tag implies.  It just
cleans up the code some more.  Only use Fixes: if it actually fixes a
problem introduced by a previous patch.

Can you remove that line and resend?

thanks.

greg k-h