netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: improve genphy_read

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 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:   Sun, 31 Mar 2019 17:33:42 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: improve genphy_read_status

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 04:59:13PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 31.03.2019 16:52, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> -	if (AUTONEG_ENABLE == phydev->autoneg) {
> >> +	if (phydev->autoneg == AUTONEG_ENABLE && phydev->link) {
> > 
> > Hi Heiner
> > 
> > I don't necessary agree with placing the constant first in the
> > comparison, but it is best practice not to change it when making
> > additions. It makes it a little bit harder to see what the actual
> > change was.
> > 
> I understand the point. However a patch to only change the order
> of the operands most likely would also be rejected as not being
> worth it.

As i said, i don't necessarily agree with the ordering, but i don't
object to it. There are reasonable arguments which it is better. So i
would just leave it alone.

       Andrew