On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 20:49 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> 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 :(
Your difficulty reading very standard c is relatively low on my list.
Still, it's you not this particular patch to the realtek staging code.
What's really poor about this code is using a 0 terminated list rather
than passing the array size.
But then again, almost all of the realtek code in staging is really poor.
cheers, Joe
