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:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:01:01 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To:     Jacob Bai <jacob.bai.au@...il.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] staging: rtl8192e: replace macro defines with
 variables

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 09:35:11PM +1100, Jacob Bai wrote:
> remove marco defines of array length, use variables instead and
> initialize them from ARRAY_SIZE().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Bai <jacob.bai.au@...il.com>
> ---
>  .../staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_hwimg.c  | 31 ++++++++++------
>  .../staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_hwimg.h  | 36 +++++++++----------
>  .../staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_phy.h    | 20 -----------
>  3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_hwimg.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_hwimg.c
> index 8920283f340e..ec9e2de4c942 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_hwimg.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_hwimg.c
> @@ -6,9 +6,10 @@
>   */
>  #include "r8192E_hwimg.h"
>  
> -u32 RTL8192E_PHY_REG_ARRAY[RTL8192E_PHY_REG_ARRAY_LEN] = {0x0,};
> +u32 RTL8192E_PHY_REG_ARRAY[] = {0x0,};
> +u32 RTL8192E_PHY_REG_ARRAY_LEN = ARRAY_SIZE(RTL8192E_PHY_REG_ARRAY);

ARRAY is bad name for an array.  It's like saying "int variable_i;"
It just makes the name longer but doesn't add any information.

Get rid of the RTL8192E_PHY_REG_ARRAY_LEN define. Use ARRAY_SIZE()
directly in the code.  This is no need for a layer of indirection and
obfuscation.

regards,
dan carpenter

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ