On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 10:23:37AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Use put_unaligned_le32 rather than using byte ordering function and > > memcpy which makes code clear. > > Also, add the header file where it is declared. > > > > Done using Coccinelle and semantic patch used is : > > > > @ rule1 @ > > identifier tmp; expression ptr,x; type T; > > @@ > > > > - tmp = cpu_to_le32(x); > > > > <+... when != tmp > > - memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp, ...); > > + put_unaligned_le32(x,ptr); > > ...+> > > > > @ depends on rule1 @ > > type j; identifier tmp; > > @@ > > > > - j tmp; > > ...when != tmp > > > > Signed-off-by: Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cmdevt.c | 10 ++++------ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cmdevt.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cmdevt.c > > index 0edc5d6..e28e119 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cmdevt.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cmdevt.c > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ > > * this warranty disclaimer. > > */ > > > > +#include <linux/unaligned/access_ok.h> > > I don't think this is correct. Should it be asm/unaligned.h? Would mind explainig me as to why it is incorrect! Also, it defined in both the header files but, why is asm/unaligned.h preferred ? Thanks > -- > Kalle Valo
