linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] staging: vt6655: refactor long lines of code in s

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: <Y1Ol7aLwJVdNtzph@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 22 Oct 2022 10:12:29 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Tanjuate Brunostar <tanjubrunostar0@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        outreachy@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] staging: vt6655: refactor long lines of code in
 s_uFillDataHead

On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 07:06:09AM +0000, Tanjuate Brunostar wrote:
> fix checkpatch errors by refactoring long lines of code in the function: s_uFillDataHead
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tanjuate Brunostar <tanjubrunostar0@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c | 97 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> index 01e72999831b..dc853b83459b 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6655/rxtx.c
> @@ -484,19 +484,28 @@ static __le16 s_uFillDataHead(struct vnt_private *pDevice,
>  			} else {
>  				/* Get Duration and TimeStamp */
>  				buf->duration_a =
> -					cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A, cbFrameLength,
> -									    byPktType, wCurrentRate, bNeedAck, uFragIdx,
> -									    cbLastFragmentSize, uMACfragNum,
> +					cpu_to_le16((u16)s_uGetDataDuration(pDevice, DATADUR_A,

Why is this function not returning u16 to start with?  Everywhere it is
used it is casted.

Please fix that up first, then fix up the function name itself, and then
work on shortening these lines, as that will be much better overall.

thanks,

greg k-h