linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8192e: fixed brace, space, and align coding style issues

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: <28159639-c011-62a0-e8bd-07a79aadca91@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2022 07:47:52 +0200
From:   Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com>
To:     Anjandev Momi <anjan@...i.ca>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8192e: fixed brace, space, and align coding
 style issues

On 9/16/22 05:06, Anjandev Momi wrote:
> After applying this patch, file drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c only
> has "Avoid CamelCase" coding style issue
> 

The patch description needs to describe _why_ the change is required or 
makes sense.

Have a look at:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-staging/20220911174933.3784-3-straube.linux@gmail.com/T/#u

> Signed-off-by: Anjandev Momi <anjan@...i.ca>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c | 16 +++++++---------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
> index 7d04966af..b4e565af1 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c
> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ void ResetBaEntry(struct ba_record *pBA)
>   	pBA->dialog_token		  = 0;
>   	pBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl.short_data = 0;
>   }
> +
>   static struct sk_buff *rtllib_ADDBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, u8 *Dst,
>   				    struct ba_record *pBA,
>   				    u16 StatusCode, u8 type)

This makes sense

> @@ -113,7 +114,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *rtllib_ADDBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, u8 *Dst,
>   	tag += 2;
>   
>   	if (type == ACT_ADDBAREQ) {
> -		memcpy(tag, (u8 *)&(pBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl), 2);
> +		memcpy(tag, (u8 *)&pBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl, 2);
>   		tag += 2;
>   	}
>   

This makes sense

> @@ -161,7 +162,6 @@ static struct sk_buff *rtllib_DELBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, u8 *dst,
>   	*tag++ = ACT_CAT_BA;
>   	*tag++ = ACT_DELBA;
>   
> -
>   	put_unaligned_le16(DelbaParamSet.short_data, tag);
>   	tag += 2;
>   

This makes sense

> @@ -258,8 +258,8 @@ int rtllib_rx_ADDBAReq(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
>   			    ieee->pHTInfo->bCurrentHTSupport);
>   		goto OnADDBAReq_Fail;
>   	}
> -	if (!GetTs(ieee, (struct ts_common_info **)(&pTS), dst,
> -	    (u8)(pBaParamSet->field.tid), RX_DIR, true)) {
> +	if (!GetTs(ieee, (struct ts_common_info **)(&pTS),
> +		   dst, (u8)(pBaParamSet->field.tid), RX_DIR, true)) {
>   		rc = ADDBA_STATUS_REFUSED;
>   		netdev_warn(ieee->dev, "%s(): can't get TS\n", __func__);
>   		goto OnADDBAReq_Fail;

Why do you need to put the "dst" to the next line?

> @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ int rtllib_rx_ADDBAReq(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
>   	pBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl = *pBaStartSeqCtrl;
>   
>   	if (ieee->GetHalfNmodeSupportByAPsHandler(ieee->dev) ||
> -	   (ieee->pHTInfo->IOTAction & HT_IOT_ACT_ALLOW_PEER_AGG_ONE_PKT))
> +	    (ieee->pHTInfo->IOTAction & HT_IOT_ACT_ALLOW_PEER_AGG_ONE_PKT))
>   		pBA->ba_param_set.field.buffer_size = 1;
>   	else
>   		pBA->ba_param_set.field.buffer_size = 32;

Did checkpatch tell you to do so?

> @@ -380,7 +380,6 @@ int rtllib_rx_ADDBARsp(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
>   			goto OnADDBARsp_Reject;
>   		}
>   
> -
>   		pAdmittedBA->dialog_token = *pDialogToken;
>   		pAdmittedBA->ba_timeout_value = *pBaTimeoutVal;
>   		pAdmittedBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl = pPendingBA->ba_start_seq_ctrl;

This makes sense

> @@ -419,8 +418,7 @@ int rtllib_rx_DELBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
>   		return -1;
>   	}
>   
> -	if (!ieee->current_network.qos_data.active ||
> -		!ieee->pHTInfo->bCurrentHTSupport) {
> +	if (!ieee->current_network.qos_data.active || !ieee->pHTInfo->bCurrentHTSupport) {
>   		netdev_warn(ieee->dev,
>   			    "received DELBA while QOS or HT is not supported(%d, %d)\n",
>   			    ieee->current_network. qos_data.active,

This makes sense

> @@ -440,7 +438,7 @@ int rtllib_rx_DELBA(struct rtllib_device *ieee, struct sk_buff *skb)
>   		struct rx_ts_record *pRxTs;
>   
>   		if (!GetTs(ieee, (struct ts_common_info **)&pRxTs, dst,
> -		    (u8)pDelBaParamSet->field.tid, RX_DIR, false)) {
> +			   (u8)pDelBaParamSet->field.tid, RX_DIR, false)) {
>   			netdev_warn(ieee->dev,
>   				    "%s(): can't get TS for RXTS. dst:%pM TID:%d\n",
>   				    __func__, dst,

Did checkpatch tell you to do so? Checkpatch is not always right. I see 
what you want to do but I cannot say that this is really improving 
readability.

Always consider that I am not the maintainer. Those are just my opinions.

I can apply and compile your patch. Connection works.

I am sure you need a v2 of this patch with an updated description. 
Please do include a change history.

Bye Philipp