| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <e215f254-dd97-105c-fe2d-0ec786ea50ef@codethink.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:32:21 +0000
From: Milan Lakhani <milan.lakhani@...ethink.co.uk>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc: 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
Hi Lukas,
On 23/11/2020 13:17, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> 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.
I'm using git send-email to send patches and, as described in the
'Sending patches with git send-email' section on
https://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch, git-send-email automatically
Ccs people with the the Cc and CC tags. I did see this in other commits
too, maybe they're used by the authors to pick out the maintainers to
send the patches to?
>
>> 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?
Thanks, good idea, I have made a macro for it and am about to send the
patch, it would be good to hear if it is what you were envisaging.
>> 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