linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] serial: 8250_pci: Refactor the loop in pci_ite887x

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: <YO7aOnACHsZOn2/H@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:36:10 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] serial: 8250_pci: Refactor the loop in
 pci_ite887x_init()

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 03:44:31AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-07-13 at 13:40 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The loop can be refactored by using ARRAY_SIZE() instead of NULL terminator.
> > This reduces code base and makes it easier to read and understand.

Thanks for review! My answers below.

> > +/* inta_addr are the configuration addresses of the ITE */
> > +static const short inta_addr[] = { 0x2a0, 0x2c0, 0x220, 0x240, 0x1e0, 0x200, 0x280, };
> 
> Why move this outside the only function it's used in?

Because it's a static one. I prefer to see global variables easily when reading
the code.

> The trailing comma isn't necessary/useful and possibly confusing too.

True, since it's one line.

> >  static int pci_ite887x_init(struct pci_dev *dev)
> >  {
> > -	/* inta_addr are the configuration addresses of the ITE */
> > -	static const short inta_addr[] = { 0x2a0, 0x2c0, 0x220, 0x240, 0x1e0,
> > -							0x200, 0x280, 0 };
> >  	int ret, i, type;
> >  	struct resource *iobase = NULL;
> >  	u32 miscr, uartbar, ioport;
> > 
> >  	/* search for the base-ioport */
> > -	i = 0;
> > -	while (inta_addr[i] && iobase == NULL) {
> > -		iobase = request_region(inta_addr[i], ITE_887x_IOSIZE,
> > -								"ite887x");
> > +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(inta_addr); i++) {
> > +		iobase = request_region(inta_addr[i], ITE_887x_IOSIZE, "ite887x");
> >  		if (iobase != NULL) {
> 
> continue and unindent the block below?

As a separate patch perhaps?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko