From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751122AbaJMUri (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:47:38 -0400 Received: from rgout01.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk ([65.20.0.178]:31584 "EHLO rgout01.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751188AbaJMUrg (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:47:36 -0400 X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A090204.543C3A66.006D,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=28/50,refid=2.7.2:2014.10.13.90922:17:28.905,ip=81.158.78.155,rules=__MOZILLA_MSGID, __HAS_MSGID, __SANE_MSGID, __HAS_FROM, __PHISH_FROM2, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL_FROM, __USER_AGENT, __MOZILLA_USER_AGENT, __MIME_VERSION, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __MULTIPLE_RCPTS_CC_X2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END, __IN_REP_TO, __CT, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE, __FORWARDED_MSG, BODY_SIZE_4000_4999, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, SXL_IP_DYNAMIC[155.78.158.81.fur], HTML_00_01, HTML_00_10, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __PHISH_FROM, MULTIPLE_RCPTS, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1, RDNS_SUSP, __FRAUD_WEBMAIL, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS, NO_URI_FOUND X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown Message-ID: <543C3BA8.2060709@btinternet.com> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:52:56 +0100 From: Michael Roocroft User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Perches CC: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue References: <1413146950-932-1-git-send-email-mike.linux@btinternet.com> <1413154885.22149.49.camel@joe-AO725> <543C3229.2090205@btinternet.com> <1413231356.1287.18.camel@joe-AO725> In-Reply-To: <1413231356.1287.18.camel@joe-AO725> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/13/14 21:15, Joe Perches wrote: > 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 > > Hi Joe Thanks for the Advice, I fully intend to making more meaningful contributions when my confidence in writing C is better than it is at the moment. I'll concentrate on making any changes to staging whilst I learn and get to grips with git, and continue to look through the rest of the kernel tree as a learning exercise. I am extremely new to all this and a little overwhelmed, but by looking and not doing anyhing i'll never learn anything.