netdev - Re: [PATCH] can: mcba_usb: Fix termination command argument

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: <CAMZ6Rq+-ya9VxSGUD4aP=N58gZ1CmDbFFGQ9Oys0aTKm1rWN0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2022 18:54:25 +0900
From:   Vincent Mailhol <vincent.mailhol@...il.com>
To:     Yasushi SHOJI <yasushi.shoji@...il.com>
Cc:     Yasushi SHOJI <yashi@...cecubics.com>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: mcba_usb: Fix termination command argument

On Thu. 24 Nov. 2022 at 18:52, Yasushi SHOJI <yasushi.shoji@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 9:53 AM Vincent Mailhol
> <vincent.mailhol@...il.com> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/mcba_usb.c b/drivers/net/can/usb/mcba_usb.c
> > > index 218b098b261d..67beff1a3876 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/can/usb/mcba_usb.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/mcba_usb.c
> > > @@ -785,9 +785,9 @@ static int mcba_set_termination(struct net_device *netdev, u16 term)
> > >         };
> > >
> > >         if (term == MCBA_TERMINATION_ENABLED)
> > > -               usb_msg.termination = 1;
> > > -       else
> > >                 usb_msg.termination = 0;
> > > +       else
> > > +               usb_msg.termination = 1;
> > >
> > >         mcba_usb_xmit_cmd(priv, (struct mcba_usb_msg *)&usb_msg);
> >
> > Nitpick: does it make sense to rename the field to something like
> > usb_msg.termination_disable or usb_msg.termination_off? This would
> > make it more explicit that this is a "reverse" boolean.
>
> I'd rather define the values like
>
> #define TERMINATION_ON (0)
> #define TERMINATION_OFF (1)
>
> So the block becomes
>
> if (term == MCBA_TERMINATION_ENABLED)
>     usb_msg.termination = TERMINATION_ON;
> else
>     usb_msg.termination = TERMINATION_OFF;

That also works! Thank you.