On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 01:16:54PM -0400, Brent Pappas wrote:
> From: Brent Pappas <pappasbrent@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Replace macros "RotR1", "Lo8", "Hi8", "Lo16", "Hi16", and "Mk16" with
> static inline functions to comply with Linux coding style standards.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brent Pappas <bpappas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_security.c | 35 +++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_security.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_security.c
> index ac731415f733..519e141fb82c 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_security.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_security.c
> @@ -253,12 +253,35 @@ void rtw_seccalctkipmic(u8 *key, u8 *header, u8 *data, u32 data_len, u8 *mic_cod
> }
>
> /* macros for extraction/creation of unsigned char/unsigned short values */
> -#define RotR1(v16) ((((v16) >> 1) & 0x7FFF) ^ (((v16) & 1) << 15))
> -#define Lo8(v16) ((u8)((v16) & 0x00FF))
> -#define Hi8(v16) ((u8)(((v16) >> 8) & 0x00FF))
> -#define Lo16(v32) ((u16)((v32) & 0xFFFF))
> -#define Hi16(v32) ((u16)(((v32) >> 16) & 0xFFFF))
> -#define Mk16(hi, lo) ((lo) ^ (((u16)(hi)) << 8))
> +static inline u16 RotR1(u16 v16)
> +{
> + return ((((v16) >> 1) & 0x7FFF) ^ (((v16) & 1) << 15));
> +}
> +
> +static inline u8 Lo8(u16 v16)
> +{
> + return ((u8)((v16) & 0x00FF));
Odd use of spaces, doesn't checkpatch complain about this?
But the larger question is, don't we already have functions for this in
the core kernel? Why not just use them instead of hand-rolling custom
functions instead?
thanks,
greg k-h
