linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: fixed a CamelCase coding style issue.

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: <20210219121219.GZ2087@kadam>
Date:   Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:12:19 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Selvakumar Elangovan <selvakumar16197@...il.com>
Cc:     forest@...ttletooquiet.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        tvboxspy@...il.com, oscar.carter@....com,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vt6656: fixed a CamelCase coding style issue.

You're not asking the right questions.

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:28:35PM +0530, Selvakumar Elangovan wrote:
> This patch renames CamelCase macros uVar and uModulo into u_var and
> u_module in device.h
> 

Is "u_var" a good name?  What does the "u_" even mean?

> This issue was reported by checkpatch.pl
> 
> Signed-off-by: Selvakumar Elangovan <selvakumar16197@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> index 947530fefe94..6615d356f74a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h
> @@ -385,11 +385,11 @@ struct vnt_private {
>  	struct ieee80211_low_level_stats low_stats;
>  };
>  
> -#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(uVar, uModulo) {	\
> -	if ((uVar) >= ((uModulo) - 1))			\
> -		(uVar) = 0;				\
> +#define ADD_ONE_WITH_WRAP_AROUND(u_var, u_modulo) {	\
> +	if ((u_var) >= ((u_modulo) - 1))			\

The \ is not aligned any more.

> +		(u_var) = 0;				\
>  	else						\
> -		(uVar)++;				\
> +		(u_var)++;				\
>  }


This macro is rubbish.  How does the wrap around even make sense?
I hope that if you review the code a bit I think you will find that the
wrap around is impossible?  Just fix the two callers and delete this
macro.

regards,
dan carpenter