linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/12] Staging: rtl8192e: Rename variable pBA

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: <ZLC3w4tjw16LwuEa@basil>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2023 19:49:39 -0700
From:   Tree Davies <tdavies@...kphysics.net>
To:     Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, anjan@...i.ca, error27@...il.com,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] Staging: rtl8192e: Rename variable pBA

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:54:40PM +0200, Philipp Hortmann wrote:
> On 7/13/23 01:35, Tree Davies wrote:
> > Rename variable pBA to pba in order to Fix checkpatch
> > warning: Avoid CamelCase
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tree Davies<tdavies@...kphysics.net>
> > ---
> >   drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl819x_BAProc.c | 106 +++++++++++-----------
> >   drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib.h         |   2 +-
> >   2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> Hi Tree,
> the p is typically for pointer. This is not wanted when you change the name.
> But ba is is in use....
> 
> Bye Philipp

Thanks Philipp,                                                      
                                                                     
A few thoughts...                                                    
Looking at occurances of pBA, they all appear as local variable      
declarations of struct ba_record, mostly as function params.         
                                                                     
I also see what you mentioned, as BA being already taken in          
rtl819x_BAProc.c:394 and line 292, but I don't 'think' that renaming them
both to ba will result negatively(?).

Agreed, let's wait on Greg.

Cheers!
Tree