linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] iio: add helper function for reading channel offset in buffer

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a9b3f2b469e26d13f1c37a6f10373e24@artur-rojek.eu>
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:33:08 +0200
From:   Artur Rojek <contact@...ur-rojek.eu>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Chris Morgan <macromorgan@...mail.com>,
        "open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] iio: add helper function for reading channel offset
 in buffer

On 2022-08-19 10:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 1:58 PM Artur Rojek <contact@...ur-rojek.eu> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> This is useful for consumers that wish to parse raw buffer data.
> 
> ...
> 
>> +int iio_find_channel_offset_in_buffer(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> +                                     const struct iio_chan_spec 
>> *chan,
>> +                                     struct iio_buffer *buffer)
>> +{
>> +       int length, offset = 0;
>> +       unsigned int si;
>> +
>> +       if (chan->scan_index < 0 ||
>> +           !test_bit(chan->scan_index, buffer->scan_mask)) {
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +       }
> 
> Have you run checkpatch? The {} are redundant. But personally I would
> split this into two separate conditionals.
I did run checkpatch on it - all patches were ready for submission.
I don't find the {} redundant for multi-line statements, like this one,
and I personally prefer to check conditions that return the same error
type together.
> 
>> +       for (si = 0; si < chan->scan_index; ++si) {
> 
> Just a side crying: where did you, people, get this pre-increment 
> pattern from?!
> 
>> +               if (!test_bit(si, buffer->scan_mask))
>> +                       continue;
> 
> NIH for_each_set_bit()
> 
>> +               length = iio_storage_bytes_for_si(indio_dev, si);
>> +
>> +               /* Account for channel alignment. */
>> +               if (offset % length)
>> +                       offset += length - (offset % length);
>> +               offset += length;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       return offset;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iio_find_channel_offset_in_buffer);
> 
> Same Q as per previous patch: IIO namespace?