linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: Removed unnecessary parentheses

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: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:19:41 +0100
From: Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com>
To: Brandon Crain <bcrain1606@...il.com>, larry.finger@...inger.net,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8712: Removed unnecessary parentheses

On 3/22/24 16:11, Brandon Crain wrote:
Please make your "Subject" line more unique. Consider that we may end up
with having dozen of commits like yours, all of them referring to
different removals and all without the necessary information to tell 
what they differ in (except the driver/subsystem). So it would help if 
you add the changed file or function to make it more unique.
> Removed uneccessary parentheses from source file

Please use a full sentences with final dot. Always consider that the why 
is most important to answer. In your case the answer would be "because 
it is unnecessary" My preferred proposal would be:

Remove unnecessary parentheses to increase readability.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Brandon Crain <bcrain1606@...il.com>
> ---
>   drivers/staging/rtl8712/recv_linux.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/recv_linux.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/recv_linux.c
> index 215fca4abb3a..2bf4661432a9 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8712/recv_linux.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8712/recv_linux.c
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ void r8712_recv_indicatepkt(struct _adapter *adapter,
>   	skb->data = recvframe->u.hdr.rx_data;
>   	skb->len = recvframe->u.hdr.len;
>   	skb_set_tail_pointer(skb, skb->len);
> -	if ((attrib->tcpchk_valid == 1) && (attrib->tcp_chkrpt == 1))
> +	if (attrib->tcpchk_valid == 1 && attrib->tcp_chkrpt == 1)

I am not so happy with this proposal I need to know the exact rules that 
the == has priority over &&. So I like to read it with brackets.

>   		skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY;
>   	else
>   		skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_NONE;

If you send in a second version of this patch please use a change 
history. Description from Dan under:
https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/07/27/how-to-send-a-v2-patch/

Thanks for your support.

Bye Philipp