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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
