linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging:media: atomisp: Whitespaces cleanup in vmem.c

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: <CAATBrPHpLnsWb-Ua0z2Nmv7To_yXeosoV8+nGzcWfGUVPFq1Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 14:46:47 +0200
From: Adrian Barnaś <abarnas@...gle.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hansg@...nel.org>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, 
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, 
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging:media: atomisp: Whitespaces cleanup in vmem.c

On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 2:23 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 09:10:50AM +0000, Adrian Barnaś wrote:
> > Whitespaces cleanup to conform with kernel style and improve readability.
>
> Strange...

You mean the commit description? Should I reword it?

> >  /* subword bits move like this:         MSB[____xxxx____]LSB -> MSB[00000000xxxx]LSB */
> > -static inline unsigned long long
> > -subword(unsigned long long w, unsigned int start, unsigned int end)
> > +static inline unsigned long long subword(unsigned long long w, unsigned int start,
> > +                                      unsigned int end)
> >  {
> >       return (w & (((1ULL << (end - 1)) - 1) << 1 | 1)) >> start;
> >  }
> >
> >  /* inverse subword bits move like this: MSB[xxxx____xxxx]LSB -> MSB[xxxx0000xxxx]LSB */
> > -static inline unsigned long long
> > -inv_subword(unsigned long long w, unsigned int start, unsigned int end)
> > +static inline unsigned long long inv_subword(unsigned long long w, unsigned int start,
> > +                                          unsigned int end)
> >  {
> >       return w & (~(((1ULL << (end - 1)) - 1) << 1 | 1) | ((1ULL << start) - 1));
> >  }
>
> These two were just "fixed according to the kernel coding style" and here
> again. This is odd.
>
> Note, the style after the first patch is okay. I dunno what's wrong with it.

Those were not violate the kernel code style indeed, but it looks more
consistent this way for me.
Should I revert those?

> ...
>
> > -void isp_vmem_load(
> > -    const isp_ID_t           ID,
> > -    const t_vmem_elem        *from,
> > -    t_vmem_elem              *to,
> > -    unsigned int elems) /* In t_vmem_elem */
> > +void isp_vmem_load(const isp_ID_t ID, const t_vmem_elem *from, t_vmem_elem *to,
> > +                unsigned int elems) /* In t_vmem_elem */
>
> Please, (re)move trailing comments somewhere else.

Those comments are also in header so in my opinion we could get rid of
them here.

Thank you for a review
Adrian Barnaś