netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] mac80211_hwsim: add PMSR capability support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2023 10:34:32 +0100
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Jaewan Kim <jaewan@...gle.com>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com, adelva@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] mac80211_hwsim: add PMSR capability support

On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 10:31 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:13:08AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 08:43 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 02:11:38PM +0900, Jaewan Kim wrote:
> > > > BTW,  can I expect you to review my changes for further patchsets?
> > > > I sometimes get conflicting opinions (e.g. line limits)
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I was the one that said "you can use 100 columns", if that's not
> > > ok in the networking subsystem yet, that was my fault as it's been that
> > > way in other parts of the kernel tree for a while.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hah. Maybe that's my mistake then, I was still at "use 80 columns where
> > it's simple, and more if it would look worse" ...
> 
> It was changed back in 2020:
>  bdc48fa11e46 ("checkpatch/coding-style: deprecate 80-column warning")
> 
> seems to take a while to propagate out to all the subsystems :)

Ah no, I was aware of that, but I guess we interpret this bit
differently:

+Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks,
+unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does
+not hide information.


Here, I would've said something like:

+	if (request->request_lci && nla_put_flag(msg, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_REQ_ATTR_REQUEST_LCI))
+		return -ENOBUFS;

can indeed "be broken into sensible chunks, unless ..."

Just like this one already did:

+	if (request->request_civicloc &&
+	    nla_put_flag(msg, NL80211_PMSR_FTM_REQ_ATTR_REQUEST_CIVICLOC))
+		return -ENOBUFS;


Personally I think the latter is easier to read because scanning the
long line for the logical break at "&&" is harder for me, but YMMV.

johannes