[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <abe86b14417b41cfaaea2707fa304c1a@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:33:24 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: "'Fabio M. De Francesco'" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>
CC: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 16/18] staging: r8188eu: hal: Clean up rtw_read*() and
rtw_write*()
From: Fabio M. De Francesco
> Sent: 13 September 2021 19:10
...
> + u16 address = (u16)(addr & 0xffff);
>
> - usbctrl_vendorreq(pintfhdl, wvalue, &data, 1, REALTEK_USB_VENQT_READ);
> + usbctrl_vendorreq(intfhdl, address, &data, 1, REALTEK_USB_VENQT_READ);
You really don't need the (u16) cast or the '& 0xffff'.
The assignment will just truncate.
But do you even need to truncate the value at all?
It rather depends on what happens inside usbctrl_vendorreq()
and whether the parameter to this code is already constrained.
I think modern gcc are better, but I have seen code where
the '& 0xffff' masked the value, then the (u16) masked the
value and finally the low 16 bits were written into a structure.
(Oh the other patches are now readable - a lot of junk down the pan.)
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists