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).
