On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:36:09AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 19:57 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 09:31:25PM +0200, Michael Straube wrote:
> > > Refactor functions rtw_is_cckrates_included() and
> > > rtw_is_cckratesonly_included(). Add new helper function rtw_is_cckrate()
> > > that allows to make the code more compact. Improves readability and
> > > slightly reduces object file size. Change the return type to bool to
> > > reflect that the functions return boolean values.
> []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ieee80211.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ieee80211.c
> []
> > > +bool rtw_is_cckratesonly_included(u8 *rate)
> > > {
> > > - u32 i = 0;
> > > + u8 r;
> > >
> > >
> > > - while (rate[i] != 0) {
> > > - if ((((rate[i]) & 0x7f) != 2) && (((rate[i]) & 0x7f) != 4) &&
> > > - (((rate[i]) & 0x7f) != 11) && (((rate[i]) & 0x7f) != 22))
> > > + while ((r = *rate++)) {
> >
> > Ick, no.
> >
> > While it might be fun to play with pointers like this, trying to
> > determine the precidence issues involved with reading from, and then
> > incrementing the pointer like this is crazy.
> >
> > The original was obvious as to how it was walking through the array.
>
> It's sad to believe *ptr++ is not obvious to you as it's very commonly
> used in the kernel sources (over 10,000 instances).
There's lots of sad things in life :(
