netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] wireless: Remove casts of void *

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: <1308029532.26699.68.camel@Joe-Laptop>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:32:12 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@...eros.com>,
	Jouni Malinen <jmalinen@...eros.com>,
	Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vasanth@...eros.com>,
	Senthil Balasubramanian <senthilkumar@...eros.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...glemail.com>,
	Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>,
	Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@...el.com>,
	Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@...ts.ath9k.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] wireless: Remove casts of void *

On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 15:23 +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:
> Joe,

Hi Julian.

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 14:02, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > Unnecessary casts of void * clutter the code.
> > These are the remainder casts after several specific
> > patches to remove netdev_priv and dev_priv.
> You seem to have removed a lot of casts that don't relate to these cleanups.
> In particular, some of the casts seem to relate more to documentation
> rather than just changing pointer types to make the compiler happy.

All of the cast removals are casts of void* types.
I think none of of the casts are useful.
None of them are required, all are duplicative.

> In
> particular, I'm referring to the casts describing the different usages
> of data_buf in mwiflex, and around some pointer math in ath9k.

Can you describe more in detail why you think these are documentary?

This sort of cast:

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/11n.c b/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/11n.c
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ int mwifiex_ret_11n_cfg(struct host_cmd_ds_command *resp, void *data_buf)
 	struct host_cmd_ds_11n_cfg *htcfg = &resp->params.htcfg;
 
 	if (data_buf) {
-		tx_cfg = (struct mwifiex_ds_11n_tx_cfg *) data_buf;
+               tx_cfg = data_buf;

I think pretty useless.  tx_cfg is a struct mwifiex_ds_11n_tx_cfg *.

> Whilst I'm sure that the compiler is smart enough to handle automatic
> casts between pointer types, some of these, in particular the mwiflex
> bits, add some documentation to the code.

I think not.  Opinions of course can vary.

cheers, Joe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html