Re: patch splitting

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:22:40 +1100, "Tobin C. Harding" said:
> Is it easier to review this change for correctness if it is three
> patches or one?
>
> TLDR;
> +	struct wpa_key_t *key = &priv->wpa.key[index];
>
> -	memcpy(&priv->wpa.key[index].rx_seq[0], enc->rx_seq, IW_ENCODE_SEQ_MAX_SIZE);
> +	memcpy(key->rx_seq, enc->rx_seq, IW_ENCODE_SEQ_MAX_SIZE);

One patch for one thing.

> Brief description of steps:
> 1. Add local pointer variable, defined to correct memory location.
> 2. Use newly defined local variable where suitable.
> 3. Remove unnecessary address operator (reasoning specified below).

So, is this 3 things?  Or one thing:

"Simplify overly-complex first argument to memcpy()"?

Attachment: pgpNDsA_M8M5X.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies

[Index of Archives]     [Newbies FAQ]     [Linux Kernel Mentors]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [IETF Annouce]     [Git]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ACPI]
  Powered by Linux