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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:37:43 +0100 From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org> To: Benjamin Stürz <benni@...erz.xyz> Cc: andrew@...n.ch, sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com, gregory.clement@...tlin.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, linux@...tec.co.uk, krzk@...nel.org, alim.akhtar@...sung.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, robert.moore@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org, 3chas3@...il.com, laforge@...monks.org, arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, mchehab@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com, james.morse@....com, rric@...nel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org, brgl@...ev.pl, mike.marciniszyn@...nelisnetworks.com, dennis.dalessandro@...nelisnetworks.com, jgg@...pe.ca, pali@...nel.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, isdn@...ux-pingi.de, benh@...nel.crashing.org, fbarrat@...ux.ibm.com, ajd@...ux.ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, nico@...xnic.net, loic.poulain@...aro.org, kvalo@...nel.org, pkshih@...ltek.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ica.org, linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org, wcn36xx@...ts.infradead.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/22] s3c: Replace comments with C99 initializers On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 05:58:49PM +0100, Benjamin Stürz wrote: > This replaces comments with C99's designated > initializers because the kernel supports them now. I'm a bit puzzled by "because the kernel supports them now". Designated initializers are not purely a C99 feature... it is also a GNU C extension to C89. This language feature has been used by the kernel for a very long time (well over a decade). On other words it would be much more effective to advocate for the change by saying "because the code is clearer and easier to read" rather than "because we can". > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Stürz <benni@...erz.xyz> > --- > arch/arm/mach-s3c/bast-irq.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c/bast-irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c/bast-irq.c > index d299f124e6dc..bd5471f9973b 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c/bast-irq.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c/bast-irq.c > @@ -29,22 +29,22 @@ > * the irq is not implemented > */ > static const unsigned char bast_pc104_irqmasks[] = { > - 0, /* 0 */ > - 0, /* 1 */ > - 0, /* 2 */ > - 1, /* 3 */ > - 0, /* 4 */ > - 2, /* 5 */ > - 0, /* 6 */ > - 4, /* 7 */ > - 0, /* 8 */ > - 0, /* 9 */ > - 8, /* 10 */ > - 0, /* 11 */ > - 0, /* 12 */ > - 0, /* 13 */ > - 0, /* 14 */ > - 0, /* 15 */ > + [0] = 0, > + [1] = 0, > + [2] = 0, > + [3] = 1, > + [4] = 0, > + [5] = 2, > + [6] = 0, > + [7] = 4, > + [8] = 0, > + [9] = 0, > + [10] = 8, > + [11] = 0, > + [12] = 0, > + [13] = 0, > + [14] = 0, > + [15] = 0, Shouldn't this just be as follows (in order to match bast_pc104_irqs)? +static const unsigned char bast_pc104_irqmasks[16] = { + [3] = 1, + [5] = 2, + [7] = 4, + [10] = 8, }; static const unsigned char bast_pc104_irqs[] = { 3, 5, 7, 10 }; Daniel.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists