| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:17:53 +0100
From: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
To: Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc: forest@...ttletooquiet.net,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech
Subject: Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH 2/2] staging: vt6655: Correct wrappping in rxtx.c
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:59 PM Milan Lakhani
<milan.lakhani@...ethink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Correct line length and alignment in rxtx.c. Reported by checkpatch.
>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Forest Bond <forest@...ttletooquiet.net>
> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> CC: linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech
Milan, I am wondering where you picked up this convention to add these
Cc: and CC: tags in your patch?
Is there some documentation that points out to do that? (That might
need to be fixed...)
Did you observe that on some other commits? I think these tags are
added by some maintainers (probably tool-supported) when they pick the
patches, not by the authors, though.
> Signed-off-by: Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@...ethink.co.uk>
> ---
> drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> index 508e1bd..4073c33 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> @@ -492,14 +492,29 @@ s_uFillDataHead(
> pDevice->byTopCCKBasicRate,
> PK_TYPE_11B, &buf->b);
> /* Get Duration and TimeStamp */
> - buf->duration_a = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> - buf->duration_b = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_B, cbFrameLength, PK_TYPE_11B,
> - pDevice->byTopCCKBasicRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> - buf->duration_a_f0 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F0, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> - buf->duration_a_f1 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F1, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> + buf->duration_a = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A,
> + cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> + wCurrentRate, bNeedAck,
> + uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize,
> + uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> + buf->duration_b = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_B,
> + cbFrameLength, PK_TYPE_11B,
> + pDevice->byTopCCKBasicRate,
> + bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> + cbLastFragmentSize,
> + uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> + buf->duration_a_f0 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F0,
> + cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> + wCurrentRate, bNeedAck,
> + uFragIdx,
> + cbLastFragmentSize,
> + uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> + buf->duration_a_f1 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F1,
> + cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> + wCurrentRate, bNeedAck,
> + uFragIdx,
> + cbLastFragmentSize,
> + uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
>
Now to this change... it seems reasonable to refactor this into a
dedicated function or macro because this is largely "copy-and-paste"
calls with slight variable on a single argument.
How about proposing such a change instead?
> buf->time_stamp_off_a = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> buf->time_stamp_off_b = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, pDevice->byTopCCKBasicRate);
> @@ -517,12 +532,32 @@ s_uFillDataHead(
> byPktType, &buf->a);
>
> /* Get Duration and TimeStampOff */
> - buf->duration = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> - buf->duration_f0 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F0, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> - buf->duration_f1 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A_F1, cbFrameLength, byPktType,
> - wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx, cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum, byFBOption));
> + buf->duration = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A,
> + cbFrameLength,
> + byPktType,
> + wCurrentRate, bNeedAck,
> + uFragIdx,
> + cbLastFragmentSize,
> + uMACfragNum,
> + byFBOption));
> + buf->duration_f0 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice,
> + DATADUR_A_F0,
> + cbFrameLength,
> + byPktType,
> + wCurrentRate,
> + bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> + cbLastFragmentSize,
> + uMACfragNum,
> + byFBOption));
> + buf->duration_f1 = cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice,
> + DATADUR_A_F1,
> + cbFrameLength,
> + byPktType,
> + wCurrentRate,
> + bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> + cbLastFragmentSize,
> + uMACfragNum,
> + byFBOption));
> buf->time_stamp_off = vnt_time_stamp_off(pDevice, wCurrentRate);
> return buf->duration;
> }
> --
> 2.7.4
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#187): https://lists.elisa.tech/g/linux-safety/message/187
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.elisa.tech/mt/78451464/1714638
> Group Owner: linux-safety+owner@...ts.elisa.tech
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.elisa.tech/g/linux-safety/unsub [lukas.bulwahn@...il.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists