linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] staging: r8188eu: replace LE_BITS_TO

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: <YqhWIiXadDC3hzel@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:34:26 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Nam Cao <namcaov@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, phil@...lpotter.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] staging: r8188eu: replace LE_BITS_TO_1BYTE with
 clearer codes

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 05:30:24PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 10:11:43AM +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> > The statement LE_BITS_TO_1BYTE(__paddr + n, 0, 8) is not obvious on
> > what it is doing, while in truth it is simply reading one byte.
> > Replace these with clearer codes.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nam Cao <namcaov@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/Hal8188ERateAdaptive.h | 10 +++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/Hal8188ERateAdaptive.h b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/Hal8188ERateAdaptive.h
> > index 20d73ca781e8..79e4210c6b65 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/Hal8188ERateAdaptive.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/Hal8188ERateAdaptive.h
> > @@ -26,15 +26,15 @@
> >  #define GET_TX_REPORT_TYPE1_RERTY_0(__paddr)			\
> >  	le16_get_bits(*(__le16 *)__paddr, GENMASK(15, 0))
> >  #define GET_TX_REPORT_TYPE1_RERTY_1(__paddr)			\
> > -	LE_BITS_TO_1BYTE(__paddr + 2, 0, 8)
> > +	((u8 *)__paddr)[2]
> 
> Instead of doing this, I would prefer to just get rid of
> GET_TX_REPORT_TYPE1_RERTY_[1234].

Yes, I agree, that's a mess and almost impossible to understand...

thanks,

greg k-h