netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] wireless: iwlwifi: use bool instead of int

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: <1507133714.908.90.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 04 Oct 2017 19:15:14 +0300
From:   Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>
To:     Christoph Böhmwalder 
        <christoph@...hmwalder.at>, johannes.berg@...el.com,
        emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com, kvalo@...eaurora.org
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] wireless: iwlwifi: use bool instead of int

On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 17:56 +0200, Christoph Böhmwalder wrote:
> Change a usage of int in a boolean context to use the bool type
> instead, as it
> makes the intent of the function clearer and helps clarify its
> semantics.
> 
> Also eliminate the if/else and just return the boolean result
> directly,
> making the code more readable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Böhmwalder <christoph@...hmwalder.at>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-phy-db.c | 12 +++++-------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-phy-db.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-phy-db.c
> index b7cd813ba70f..0eb815ae97e8 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-phy-db.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-phy-db.c
> @@ -267,14 +267,12 @@ int iwl_phy_db_set_section(struct iwl_phy_db
> *phy_db,
>  }
>  IWL_EXPORT_SYMBOL(iwl_phy_db_set_section);
>  
> -static int is_valid_channel(u16 ch_id)
> +static bool is_valid_channel(u16 ch_id)
>  {
> -	if (ch_id <= 14 ||
> -	    (36 <= ch_id && ch_id <= 64 && ch_id % 4 == 0) ||
> -	    (100 <= ch_id && ch_id <= 140 && ch_id % 4 == 0) ||
> -	    (145 <= ch_id && ch_id <= 165 && ch_id % 4 == 1))
> -		return 1;
> -	return 0;
> +	return (ch_id <= 14 ||
> +	       (36 <= ch_id && ch_id <= 64 && ch_id % 4 == 0) ||
> +	       (100 <= ch_id && ch_id <= 140 && ch_id % 4 == 0) ||
> +	       (145 <= ch_id && ch_id <= 165 && ch_id % 4 == 1));
>  }
>  
>  static u8 ch_id_to_ch_index(u16 ch_id)

This actually makes some sense, and I would probably apply it if it
were part of a patchset that actually does something useful.

--
Luca.