netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] bridge: netfilter: checkpatch whitespace fixes

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: <20160608115248.GA2603@salvia>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:52:48 +0200
From:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	tcharding <me@...in.cc>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] bridge: netfilter: checkpatch whitespace fixes

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:02:30AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 19:34 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 10:04:40AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > One more question, is this chunk below correct from
> > > coding style point of view?
> > 
> >         if (info->bitmask & EBT_STP_ROOTADDR) {
> >                 verdict = 0;
> >                 for (i = 0; i < 6; i++)
> > -                       verdict |= (stpc->root[2+i] ^ c->root_addr[i]) &
> > -                                  c->root_addrmsk[i];
> > +                       verdict |= (stpc->root[2 + i] ^ c->root_addr[i]) &
> > +                               c->root_addrmsk[i];
> > 
> > I think the previous line is fine.
> 
> "2+i" or "2 + i", either is OK.
> Multiple line statement alignment doesn't
> matter much.

Sorry, I was actually refering to:

> > +                       verdict |= (stpc->root[2 + i] ^ c->root_addr[i]) &
> > +                               c->root_addrmsk[i];
                                    ^^^

instead of:

> > -                       verdict |= (stpc->root[2+i] ^ c->root_addr[i]) &
> > -                                  c->root_addrmsk[i];
                                       ^

here.

> I think either is fine and both are "don't care, don't need"
> to change from one to another to satisfy some silly whitespace
> overlord brainless script.
> 
> Perhaps it's better to add a function for this though.

I like this function idea :).