linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] staging: vt6655: Use incrementation in `idx`

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: <20211104130002.GB2794@kadam>
Date:   Thu, 4 Nov 2021 16:00:02 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Karolina Drobnik <karolinadrobnik@...il.com>
Cc:     outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        forest@...ttletooquiet.net, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] staging: vt6655: Use incrementation in `idx`

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 02:32:00PM +0000, Karolina Drobnik wrote:
> Increment `idx` in a loop instead of adding the loop counter
> `i` to do so. Thanks to this change, the cast to unsigned short
> can be removed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Karolina Drobnik <karolinadrobnik@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c
> index f195dafb6e63..c07653566d17 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rf.c
> @@ -700,11 +700,11 @@ bool RFvWriteWakeProgSyn(struct vnt_private *priv, unsigned char rf_type,
>  			return false;
>  
>  		for (i = 0; i < CB_AL2230_INIT_SEQ; i++)
> -			MACvSetMISCFifo(priv, (unsigned short)(idx + i), al2230_init_table[i]);
> +			MACvSetMISCFifo(priv, idx++, al2230_init_table[i]);

Of course, idx is no longer a constant so declaring it as a variable
makes sense here.  But maybe just do it in the same patch because the
patch 1/1 doesn't make sense as a stand alone patch.

Also don't declare idx as an unsigned short.  It's better to declare it
as a int so it just works like a normal number and you don't have to
think about signedness bugs and wrapping and edge cases.

regards,
dan carpenter