linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] staging: r8188eu: reformat long computation lines

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]

Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 22:43:07 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     'Greg KH' <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "outreachy@...ts.linux.dev" <outreachy@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "Larry.Finger@...inger.net" <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        "phil@...lpotter.co.uk" <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        "paskripkin@...il.com" <paskripkin@...il.com>,
        "linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kumarpraveen@...ux.microsoft.com" <kumarpraveen@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        "saurabh.truth@...il.com" <saurabh.truth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] staging: r8188eu: reformat long computation lines

On Tue, 2022-10-18 at 18:12 +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:21:26AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Greg KH
> > > Sent: 17 October 2022 15:10
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 06:52:50PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > Reformat long running computation instructions to improve code readability.
> > > > Address following checkpatch script complaints:
> > > > 	CHECK: line length of 171 exceeds 100 columns
> > > > 	CHECK: line length of 113 exceeds 100 columns
[]
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c
[]
> > > > @@ -211,8 +211,10 @@ static int __nat25_network_hash(unsigned char *network_addr)
> > > >  	} else if (network_addr[0] == NAT25_IPX) {
> > > >  		unsigned long x;
> > > > 
> > > > -		x = network_addr[1] ^ network_addr[2] ^ network_addr[3] ^ network_addr[4] ^
> > > network_addr[5] ^
> > > > -			network_addr[6] ^ network_addr[7] ^ network_addr[8] ^ network_addr[9] ^
> > > network_addr[10];
> > > > +		x = network_addr[1] ^ network_addr[2] ^ network_addr[3] ^
> > > 
> > > Why not go out to [4] here and then you are one line shorter?
> > 
> > and/or use a shorter variable name....
> Hi David,
> I have already re-submitted the patch set with 4 in line arrangement. Do you
> still suggest using shorter variable names?

Assuming this code is not performance sensitive, I suggest not just
molifying checkpatch but perhaps improving the code by adding a helper
function something like:

u8 xor_array_u8(u8 *x, size_t len)
{
	size_t i;
	u8 xor = x[0];

	for (i = 1; i < len; i++)
		xor ^= x[i];

	return xor;
}

so for instance this could be:

		x = xor_array_u8(&network_addr[1], 10);