linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Replace macros HB and LB with static inline functions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y1FodCN/JQv9zZMI@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:25:40 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Brent Pappas <bpappas@...pasbrent.com>
Cc:     namcaov@...il.com, cai.huoqing@...ux.dev, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        pappasbrent@...ghts.ucf.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Replace macros HB and LB with static inline functions

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 07:07:57PM -0400, Brent Pappas wrote:
> Replace function-like macros "HB" and "LB" with static inline functions
> to comply with preferred Linux coding style standards.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Brent Pappas <bpappas@...pasbrent.com>
> ---
> Changelog:
> V1 -> V2: Resent diff from a mail client that would not replace tabs
>           with spaces so that patch can be successfully applied.
> V2 -> V3: Created patch using git format-patch.
> 		  Tested downloading and applying patch.
>           Sent patch using git send-email.
> 
>  drivers/staging/most/net/net.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/most/net/net.c b/drivers/staging/most/net/net.c
> index 1d1fe8bff7ee..8a8fbc274b73 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/most/net/net.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/most/net/net.c
> @@ -36,8 +36,8 @@
>  #define PMS_TELID_MASK		0x0F
>  #define PMS_TELID_SHIFT		4
>  
> -#define HB(value)		((u8)((u16)(value) >> 8))
> -#define LB(value)		((u8)(value))
> +static inline u8 HB(unsigned int value)		{ return ((u8)((u16)(value) >> 8)); }
> +static inline u8 LB(unsigned int value)		{ return ((u8)(value)); }

If you use one less tab, you will not go over the 90 column limit,
right?

Only 1 tab is needed.

thanks,

greg k-h