From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754565AbaJMUQD (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:16:03 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0198.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.198]:48538 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753735AbaJMUQA (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:16:00 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:69:355:379:541:599:973:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1543:1593:1594:1605:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2110:2393:2559:2562:2693:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:4250:4321:4605:5007:7652:7903:7904:10004:10400:10848:11026:11232:11658:11914:12296:12517:12519:12555:12663:12740:13019:13071:13138:13141:13230:13231:21060:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: flag28_341dd9cd48339 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4528 Message-ID: <1413231356.1287.18.camel@joe-AO725> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue From: Joe Perches To: Michael Roocroft Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:15:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <543C3229.2090205@btinternet.com> References: <1413146950-932-1-git-send-email-mike.linux@btinternet.com> <1413154885.22149.49.camel@joe-AO725> <543C3229.2090205@btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 21:12 +0100, Michael Roocroft wrote: > On 10/13/14 00:01, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-10-12 at 21:49 +0100, Mike Roocroft wrote: > >> Fixed a coding style issue. > > [] > >> diff --git a/crypto/gf128mul.c b/crypto/gf128mul.c > > [] > >> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ > >> the table above > >> */ > >> > >> -#define xx(p, q) 0x##p##q > >> +#define xx(p, q) (0x##p##q) > >> > >> #define xda_bbe(i) ( \ > >> (i & 0x80 ? xx(43, 80) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(21, c0) : 0) ^ \ > > I think that macro is pretty useless and nothing > > but obfuscation now. > > > > The comment above it doesn't seem useful either. > > > > How about just removing and replacing the uses > > like this? > > > > --- > > crypto/gf128mul.c | 27 ++++++++------------------- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/crypto/gf128mul.c b/crypto/gf128mul.c > > index 5276607..90cf17d 100644 > > --- a/crypto/gf128mul.c > > +++ b/crypto/gf128mul.c > > @@ -88,29 +88,18 @@ > > q(0xf8), q(0xf9), q(0xfa), q(0xfb), q(0xfc), q(0xfd), q(0xfe), q(0xff) \ > > } > > > > -/* Given the value i in 0..255 as the byte overflow when a field element > > - in GHASH is multiplied by x^8, this function will return the values that > > - are generated in the lo 16-bit word of the field value by applying the > > - modular polynomial. The values lo_byte and hi_byte are returned via the > > - macro xp_fun(lo_byte, hi_byte) so that the values can be assembled into > > - memory as required by a suitable definition of this macro operating on > > - the table above > > -*/ > > - > > -#define xx(p, q) 0x##p##q > > - > > #define xda_bbe(i) ( \ > > - (i & 0x80 ? xx(43, 80) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(21, c0) : 0) ^ \ > > - (i & 0x20 ? xx(10, e0) : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? xx(08, 70) : 0) ^ \ > > - (i & 0x08 ? xx(04, 38) : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? xx(02, 1c) : 0) ^ \ > > - (i & 0x02 ? xx(01, 0e) : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? xx(00, 87) : 0) \ > > + (i & 0x80 ? 0x4380 : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? 0x21c0 : 0) ^ \ > > + (i & 0x20 ? 0x10e0 : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? 0x0870 : 0) ^ \ > > + (i & 0x08 ? 0x0438 : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? 0x021c : 0) ^ \ > > + (i & 0x02 ? 0x010e : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? 0x0087 : 0) \ > > ) > > > > #define xda_lle(i) ( \ > > - (i & 0x80 ? xx(e1, 00) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(70, 80) : 0) ^ \ > > - (i & 0x20 ? xx(38, 40) : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? xx(1c, 20) : 0) ^ \ > > - (i & 0x08 ? xx(0e, 10) : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? xx(07, 08) : 0) ^ \ > > - (i & 0x02 ? xx(03, 84) : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? xx(01, c2) : 0) \ > > + (i & 0x80 ? 0xe100 : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? 0x7080 : 0) ^ \ > > + (i & 0x20 ? 0x3840 : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? 0x1c20 : 0) ^ \ > > + (i & 0x08 ? 0x0e10 : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? 0x0708 : 0) ^ \ > > + (i & 0x02 ? 0x0384 : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? 0x01c2 : 0) \ > > ) > > > > static const u16 gf128mul_table_lle[256] = gf128mul_dat(xda_lle); > > > > > > > Hi there, Hi Mike. > I'm not really contributing anything other than getting code checkpatch clean, whilst > I relearn C and get a feel for various parts of the kernel. checkpatch cleanliness, while OK for some parts of the kernel, should not be an end-goal. checkpatch is really a tool to "check patches". If you want to submit neatening only patches, please do your changes in drivers/staging/ Otherwise, please look for code that isn't simply a style neatening bit, but something that actively makes reading the code easier, makes the object code smaller or faster, reduces complexity, adds extensibility, etc, etc... cheers, Joe