Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue
PATCH 1/1 Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue
Fixed a coding style issue.
--- crypto/gf128mul.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
crypto/gf128mul.c +1 -1
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@the table above */ -#define xx (p, q) 0x##p##q +#define xx (p, q) (0x##p##q)#define xda_bbe (i) ( \ (i & 0x80 ? xx(43, 80) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(21, c0) : 0) ^ \
Signature · 1 line
2.1.0
Quoted 1 line · Mike Roocroft
Fixed a coding style issue.
[]
crypto/gf128mul.c
Quoted 1 line
crypto/gf128mul.c +0
-0
[]
crypto/gf128mul.c line 103
Quoted 9 lines
crypto/gf128mul.c +1
-1@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@the table above */ -#define xx (p, q) 0x##p##q +#define xx (p, q) (0x##p##q)#define xda_bbe (i) ( \ (i & 0x80 ? xx(43, 80) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(21, c0) : 0) ^ \
I think that macro is pretty useless and nothing
but obfuscation now.
The comment above it doesn't seem useful either.
How about just removing and replacing the uses
like this?
--- crypto/gf128mul.c | 27 ++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
crypto/gf128mul.c +8 -19
@@ -88,29 +88,18 @@ q(0xf8), q(0xf9), q(0xfa), q(0xfb), q(0xfc), q(0xfd), q(0xfe), q(0xff) \ } -/* Given the value i in 0..255 as the byte overflow when a field element -in GHASH is multiplied by x^8, this function will return the values that -are generated in the lo 16-bit word of the field value by applying the -modular polynomial. The values lo_byte and hi_byte are returned via the -macro xp_fun(lo_byte, hi_byte) so that the values can be assembled into -memory as required by a suitable definition of this macro operating on -the table above -*/ - -#define xx (p, q) 0x##p##q -#define xda_bbe (i) ( \ - (i & 0x80 ? xx(43, 80) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(21, c0) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x20 ? xx(10, e0) : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? xx(08, 70) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x08 ? xx(04, 38) : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? xx(02, 1c) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x02 ? xx(01, 0e) : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? xx(00, 87) : 0) \ + (i & 0x80 ? 0x4380 : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? 0x21c0 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x20 ? 0x10e0 : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? 0x0870 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x08 ? 0x0438 : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? 0x021c : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x02 ? 0x010e : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? 0x0087 : 0) \ )#define xda_lle (i) ( \ - (i & 0x80 ? xx(e1, 00) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(70, 80) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x20 ? xx(38, 40) : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? xx(1c, 20) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x08 ? xx(0e, 10) : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? xx(07, 08) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x02 ? xx(03, 84) : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? xx(01, c2) : 0) \ + (i & 0x80 ? 0xe100 : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? 0x7080 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x20 ? 0x3840 : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? 0x1c20 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x08 ? 0x0e10 : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? 0x0708 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x02 ? 0x0384 : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? 0x01c2 : 0) \ )static const u16 gf128mul_table_lle[256 ] =gf128mul_dat (xda_lle);
Quoted 61 lines · Joe Perches
Quoted 1 line · Mike Roocroft
Fixed a coding style issue.
[]
crypto/gf128mul.c
Quoted 1 line
crypto/gf128mul.c +0
-0[]
crypto/gf128mul.c line 103
Quoted 9 lines
crypto/gf128mul.c +1
-1@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@the table above */ -#define xx (p, q) 0x##p##q +#define xx (p, q) (0x##p##q)#define xda_bbe (i) ( \ (i & 0x80 ? xx(43, 80) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(21, c0) : 0) ^ \I think that macro is pretty useless and nothing
but obfuscation now.The comment above it doesn't seem useful either.
How about just removing and replacing the uses
like this?--- crypto/gf128mul.c | 27 ++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)crypto/gf128mul.c +4
-16@@ -88,29 +88,18 @@ q(0xf8), q(0xf9), q(0xfa), q(0xfb), q(0xfc), q(0xfd), q(0xfe), q(0xff) \ } -/* Given the value i in 0..255 as the byte overflow when a field element -in GHASH is multiplied by x^8, this function will return the values that -are generated in the lo 16-bit word of the field value by applying the -modular polynomial. The values lo_byte and hi_byte are returned via the -macro xp_fun(lo_byte, hi_byte) so that the values can be assembled into -memory as required by a suitable definition of this macro operating on -the table above -*/ - -#define xx (p, q) 0x##p##q -#define xda_bbe (i) ( \ - (i & 0x80 ? xx(43, 80) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(21, c0) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x20 ? xx(10, e0) : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? xx(08, 70) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x08 ? xx(04, 38) : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? xx(02, 1c) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x02 ? xx(01, 0e) : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? xx(00, 87) : 0) \ + (i & 0x80 ? 0x4380 : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? 0x21c0 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x20 ? 0x10e0 : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? 0x0870 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x08 ? 0x0438 : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? 0x021c : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x02 ? 0x010e : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? 0x0087 : 0) \ )#define xda_lle (i) ( \ - (i & 0x80 ? xx(e1, 00) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(70, 80) : 0) ^ \
crypto/gf128mul.c line 105
Quoted 10 lines
crypto/gf128mul.c +4
-3- (i & 0x20 ? xx(38, 40) : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? xx(1c, 20) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x08 ? xx(0e, 10) : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? xx(07, 08) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x02 ? xx(03, 84) : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? xx(01, c2) : 0) \ + (i & 0x80 ? 0xe100 : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? 0x7080 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x20 ? 0x3840 : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? 0x1c20 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x08 ? 0x0e10 : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? 0x0708 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x02 ? 0x0384 : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? 0x01c2 : 0) \ )static const u16 gf128mul_table_lle[256 ] =gf128mul_dat (xda_lle);
Hi there,
I'm not really contributing anything other than getting code checkpatch clean, whilst
I relearn C and get a feel for various parts of the kernel.
Quoted 68 lines · Michael Roocroft
Quoted 67 lines · Joe Perches
Quoted 1 line · Mike Roocroft
Fixed a coding style issue.
[]
crypto/gf128mul.c
Quoted 1 line
crypto/gf128mul.c +0
-0[]
crypto/gf128mul.c line 103
Quoted 9 lines
crypto/gf128mul.c +1
-1@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@the table above */ -#define xx (p, q) 0x##p##q +#define xx (p, q) (0x##p##q)#define xda_bbe (i) ( \ (i & 0x80 ? xx(43, 80) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(21, c0) : 0) ^ \I think that macro is pretty useless and nothing
but obfuscation now.The comment above it doesn't seem useful either.
How about just removing and replacing the uses
like this?--- crypto/gf128mul.c | 27 ++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)crypto/gf128mul.c +8
-19@@ -88,29 +88,18 @@ q(0xf8), q(0xf9), q(0xfa), q(0xfb), q(0xfc), q(0xfd), q(0xfe), q(0xff) \ } -/* Given the value i in 0..255 as the byte overflow when a field element -in GHASH is multiplied by x^8, this function will return the values that -are generated in the lo 16-bit word of the field value by applying the -modular polynomial. The values lo_byte and hi_byte are returned via the -macro xp_fun(lo_byte, hi_byte) so that the values can be assembled into -memory as required by a suitable definition of this macro operating on -the table above -*/ - -#define xx (p, q) 0x##p##q -#define xda_bbe (i) ( \ - (i & 0x80 ? xx(43, 80) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(21, c0) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x20 ? xx(10, e0) : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? xx(08, 70) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x08 ? xx(04, 38) : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? xx(02, 1c) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x02 ? xx(01, 0e) : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? xx(00, 87) : 0) \ + (i & 0x80 ? 0x4380 : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? 0x21c0 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x20 ? 0x10e0 : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? 0x0870 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x08 ? 0x0438 : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? 0x021c : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x02 ? 0x010e : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? 0x0087 : 0) \ )#define xda_lle (i) ( \ - (i & 0x80 ? xx(e1, 00) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(70, 80) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x20 ? xx(38, 40) : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? xx(1c, 20) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x08 ? xx(0e, 10) : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? xx(07, 08) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x02 ? xx(03, 84) : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? xx(01, c2) : 0) \ + (i & 0x80 ? 0xe100 : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? 0x7080 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x20 ? 0x3840 : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? 0x1c20 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x08 ? 0x0e10 : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? 0x0708 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x02 ? 0x0384 : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? 0x01c2 : 0) \ )
Quoted 5 lines
crypto/gf128mul.c line 105
Quoted 4 lines
crypto/gf128mul.c +0
-0static const u16 gf128mul_table_lle[256 ] =gf128mul_dat (xda_lle);Hi there,
Hi Mike.
Quoted 2 lines
I'm not really contributing anything other than getting code checkpatch clean, whilst I relearn C and get a feel for various parts of the kernel.
checkpatch cleanliness, while OK for some parts of the kernel, should not be an end-goal.
checkpatch is really a tool to "check patches".
If you want to submit neatening only patches, please do your changes in drivers/staging/
Otherwise, please look for code that isn't simply a style neatening bit, but something that actively makes reading the code easier, makes the object code smaller or faster, reduces complexity, adds extensibility, etc, etc...
cheers, Joe
Quoted 86 lines · Joe Perches
Quoted 68 lines · Michael Roocroft
Quoted 67 lines · Joe Perches
Quoted 1 line · Mike Roocroft
Fixed a coding style issue.
[]
crypto/gf128mul.c
Quoted 1 line
crypto/gf128mul.c +0
-0[]
crypto/gf128mul.c line 103
Quoted 9 lines
crypto/gf128mul.c +1
-1@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@the table above */ -#define xx (p, q) 0x##p##q +#define xx (p, q) (0x##p##q)#define xda_bbe (i) ( \ (i & 0x80 ? xx(43, 80) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(21, c0) : 0) ^ \I think that macro is pretty useless and nothing
but obfuscation now.The comment above it doesn't seem useful either.
How about just removing and replacing the uses
like this?--- crypto/gf128mul.c | 27 ++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)crypto/gf128mul.c +8
-19@@ -88,29 +88,18 @@ q(0xf8), q(0xf9), q(0xfa), q(0xfb), q(0xfc), q(0xfd), q(0xfe), q(0xff) \ } -/* Given the value i in 0..255 as the byte overflow when a field element -in GHASH is multiplied by x^8, this function will return the values that -are generated in the lo 16-bit word of the field value by applying the -modular polynomial. The values lo_byte and hi_byte are returned via the -macro xp_fun(lo_byte, hi_byte) so that the values can be assembled into -memory as required by a suitable definition of this macro operating on -the table above -*/ - -#define xx (p, q) 0x##p##q -#define xda_bbe (i) ( \ - (i & 0x80 ? xx(43, 80) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(21, c0) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x20 ? xx(10, e0) : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? xx(08, 70) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x08 ? xx(04, 38) : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? xx(02, 1c) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x02 ? xx(01, 0e) : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? xx(00, 87) : 0) \ + (i & 0x80 ? 0x4380 : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? 0x21c0 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x20 ? 0x10e0 : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? 0x0870 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x08 ? 0x0438 : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? 0x021c : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x02 ? 0x010e : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? 0x0087 : 0) \ )#define xda_lle (i) ( \ - (i & 0x80 ? xx(e1, 00) : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? xx(70, 80) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x20 ? xx(38, 40) : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? xx(1c, 20) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x08 ? xx(0e, 10) : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? xx(07, 08) : 0) ^ \ - (i & 0x02 ? xx(03, 84) : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? xx(01, c2) : 0) \ + (i & 0x80 ? 0xe100 : 0) ^ (i & 0x40 ? 0x7080 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x20 ? 0x3840 : 0) ^ (i & 0x10 ? 0x1c20 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x08 ? 0x0e10 : 0) ^ (i & 0x04 ? 0x0708 : 0) ^ \ + (i & 0x02 ? 0x0384 : 0) ^ (i & 0x01 ? 0x01c2 : 0) \ )Quoted 5 lines
crypto/gf128mul.c line 105
Quoted 4 lines
crypto/gf128mul.c +0
-0static const u16 gf128mul_table_lle[256 ] =gf128mul_dat (xda_lle);Hi there,
Hi Mike.
Quoted 2 lines
I'm not really contributing anything other than getting code checkpatch clean, whilst I relearn C and get a feel for various parts of the kernel.
checkpatch cleanliness, while OK for some parts of the kernel, should not be an end-goal.
checkpatch is really a tool to "check patches".
If you want to submit neatening only patches, please do your changes in
drivers/staging/
Quoted 9 lines
Otherwise, please look for code that isn't simply a style neatening bit, but something that actively makes reading the code easier, makes the object code smaller or faster, reduces complexity, adds extensibility, etc, etc...
cheers, Joe
Hi Joe
Thanks for the Advice, I fully intend to making more meaningful contributions when my confidence in writing C is better than it is at the moment. I'll concentrate on making any changes to staging whilst I learn and get to grips with git, and continue to look through the rest of the kernel tree as a learning exercise.
I am extremely new to all this and a little overwhelmed, but by looking and not doing anyhing i'll never learn anything.
Quoted 4 lines · Michael Roocroft
I fully intend to making more meaningful contributions
when my confidence in writing C is better than it is at the moment. I'll concentrate on making any changes to staging whilst I learn and get to grips with git, and continue to look through the rest of the kernel tree as a learning exercise.
Sounds like a good plan to me. welcome btw.
Quoted 1 line
by looking and not doing anything i'll never learn anything.
True words...
cheers, Joe