This patch introduces the use of function put_unaligned_le16.
This is done using Coccinelle and semantic patch used is as follows:
@a@
typedef u16, __le16;
{u16,__le16} e16;
identifier tmp;
expression ptr;
expression y,e;
type T;
@@
- tmp = cpu_to_le16(y);
<+... when != tmp
(
- memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp, \(2\|sizeof(u16)\|sizeof(__le16)\|sizeof(e16)\));
+ put_unaligned_le16(y,ptr);
|
- memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp, ...);
+ put_unaligned_le16(y,ptr);
)
...+>
? tmp = e
@@ type T; identifier a.tmp; @@
- T tmp;
...when != tmp
Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar <[email protected]>
---
Changes since v1:
<asm/unaligned.h> has arch-specific knowlege of which of
the implementations needs to be used. So, include it instaed
of <linux/unaligned/access_ok.h>.
Changes since v2:
Fix typing mistake in subject
drivers/nfc/port100.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/nfc/port100.c b/drivers/nfc/port100.c
index 4ac4d31..440f0f3 100644
--- a/drivers/nfc/port100.c
+++ b/drivers/nfc/port100.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/usb.h>
#include <net/nfc/digital.h>
+#include <asm/unaligned.h>
#define VERSION "0.1"
@@ -1136,7 +1137,6 @@ static int port100_in_send_cmd(struct nfc_digital_dev *ddev,
{
struct port100 *dev = nfc_digital_get_drvdata(ddev);
struct port100_cb_arg *cb_arg;
- __le16 timeout;
cb_arg = kzalloc(sizeof(struct port100_cb_arg), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!cb_arg)
@@ -1145,9 +1145,7 @@ static int port100_in_send_cmd(struct nfc_digital_dev *ddev,
cb_arg->complete_cb = cb;
cb_arg->complete_arg = arg;
- timeout = cpu_to_le16(_timeout * 10);
-
- memcpy(skb_push(skb, sizeof(__le16)), &timeout, sizeof(__le16));
+ put_unaligned_le16(_timeout * 10, skb_push(skb, sizeof(__le16)));
return port100_send_cmd_async(dev, PORT100_CMD_IN_COMM_RF, skb,
port100_in_comm_rf_complete, cb_arg);
--
1.9.1
On 12/28/14 17:34, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
>
> On Dec 28, 2014 8:46 PM, "Arend van Spriel" <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> > + Samuel
> >
> >
> > On 12/28/14 12:33, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Vaishali Thakkar
> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This patch introduces the use of function put_unaligned_le16.
> >>>
> >>> This is done using Coccinelle and semantic patch used is as follows:
> >>>
> >>> @a@
> >>> typedef u16, __le16;
> >>> {u16,__le16} e16;
> >>> identifier tmp;
> >>> expression ptr;
> >>> expression y,e;
> >>> type T;
> >>> @@
> >>>
> >>> - tmp = cpu_to_le16(y);
> >>>
> >>> <+... when != tmp
> >>> (
> >>> - memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp,
> \(2\|sizeof(u16)\|sizeof(__le16)\|sizeof(e16)\));
> >>> + put_unaligned_le16(y,ptr);
> >>> |
> >>> - memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp, ...);
> >>> + put_unaligned_le16(y,ptr);
> >>> )
> >>> ...+>
> >>> ? tmp = e
> >>>
> >>> @@ type T; identifier a.tmp; @@
> >>>
> >>> - T tmp;
> >>> ...when != tmp
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar<[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Changes since v1:
> >>> <asm/unaligned.h> has arch-specific knowlege of which of
> >>> the implementations needs to be used. So, include it instaed
> >>> of<linux/unaligned/access_ok.h>.
> >>> Changes since v2:
> >>> Fix typing mistake in subject
> >>>
> >>> drivers/nfc/port100.c | 6 ++----
> >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/nfc/port100.c b/drivers/nfc/port100.c
> >>> index 4ac4d31..440f0f3 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/nfc/port100.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/nfc/port100.c
> >>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> >>> #include<linux/module.h>
> >>> #include<linux/usb.h>
> >>> #include<net/nfc/digital.h>
> >>> +#include<asm/unaligned.h>
> >>>
> >>> #define VERSION "0.1"
> >>>
> >>> @@ -1136,7 +1137,6 @@ static int port100_in_send_cmd(struct
> nfc_digital_dev *ddev,
> >>> {
> >>> struct port100 *dev = nfc_digital_get_drvdata(ddev);
> >>> struct port100_cb_arg *cb_arg;
> >>> - __le16 timeout;
> >>>
> >>> cb_arg = kzalloc(sizeof(struct port100_cb_arg), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> if (!cb_arg)
> >>> @@ -1145,9 +1145,7 @@ static int port100_in_send_cmd(struct
> nfc_digital_dev *ddev,
> >>> cb_arg->complete_cb = cb;
> >>> cb_arg->complete_arg = arg;
> >>>
> >>> - timeout = cpu_to_le16(_timeout * 10);
> >>> -
> >>> - memcpy(skb_push(skb, sizeof(__le16)),&timeout, sizeof(__le16));
> >>>
> >>> + put_unaligned_le16(_timeout * 10, skb_push(skb, sizeof(__le16)));
> >>>
> >>> return port100_send_cmd_async(dev, PORT100_CMD_IN_COMM_RF, skb,
> >>> port100_in_comm_rf_complete, cb_arg);
> >>> --
> >>> 1.9.1
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hello...Can someone please review my patch so that I can have idea
> >> about I am on a right way or not??
> >> I think this is missed by developers.
> >
> >
> > Generally that's not how it works. You either get comments or not. It
> may also help to send the patch to the maintainer, ie. Samuel Ortiz.
>
> Oh.ok. Sorry for the noise.
>
> Actually original patch was Cc'd to maintainer also. But as a newbie, I
> thought may be it is missed or I am wrong somewhere. That's why just
> asked it on mailing list. Anyways got your point.
No problem. You were not that noisy ;-)
Regards,
Arend
> Thanks.
>
> > Regards,
> > Arend
> >
> >> Thank You.
> >>
> >
>
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Vaishali Thakkar
<[email protected]> wrote:
> This patch introduces the use of function put_unaligned_le16.
>
> This is done using Coccinelle and semantic patch used is as follows:
>
> @a@
> typedef u16, __le16;
> {u16,__le16} e16;
> identifier tmp;
> expression ptr;
> expression y,e;
> type T;
> @@
>
> - tmp = cpu_to_le16(y);
>
> <+... when != tmp
> (
> - memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp, \(2\|sizeof(u16)\|sizeof(__le16)\|sizeof(e16)\));
> + put_unaligned_le16(y,ptr);
> |
> - memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp, ...);
> + put_unaligned_le16(y,ptr);
> )
> ...+>
> ? tmp = e
>
> @@ type T; identifier a.tmp; @@
>
> - T tmp;
> ...when != tmp
>
> Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> <asm/unaligned.h> has arch-specific knowlege of which of
> the implementations needs to be used. So, include it instaed
> of <linux/unaligned/access_ok.h>.
> Changes since v2:
> Fix typing mistake in subject
>
> drivers/nfc/port100.c | 6 ++----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/nfc/port100.c b/drivers/nfc/port100.c
> index 4ac4d31..440f0f3 100644
> --- a/drivers/nfc/port100.c
> +++ b/drivers/nfc/port100.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/usb.h>
> #include <net/nfc/digital.h>
> +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
>
> #define VERSION "0.1"
>
> @@ -1136,7 +1137,6 @@ static int port100_in_send_cmd(struct nfc_digital_dev *ddev,
> {
> struct port100 *dev = nfc_digital_get_drvdata(ddev);
> struct port100_cb_arg *cb_arg;
> - __le16 timeout;
>
> cb_arg = kzalloc(sizeof(struct port100_cb_arg), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!cb_arg)
> @@ -1145,9 +1145,7 @@ static int port100_in_send_cmd(struct nfc_digital_dev *ddev,
> cb_arg->complete_cb = cb;
> cb_arg->complete_arg = arg;
>
> - timeout = cpu_to_le16(_timeout * 10);
> -
> - memcpy(skb_push(skb, sizeof(__le16)), &timeout, sizeof(__le16));
> + put_unaligned_le16(_timeout * 10, skb_push(skb, sizeof(__le16)));
>
> return port100_send_cmd_async(dev, PORT100_CMD_IN_COMM_RF, skb,
> port100_in_comm_rf_complete, cb_arg);
> --
> 1.9.1
>
Hello...Can someone please review my patch so that I can have idea
about I am on a right way or not??
I think this is missed by developers.
Thank You.
--
Vaishali
+ Samuel
On 12/28/14 12:33, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Vaishali Thakkar
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This patch introduces the use of function put_unaligned_le16.
>>
>> This is done using Coccinelle and semantic patch used is as follows:
>>
>> @a@
>> typedef u16, __le16;
>> {u16,__le16} e16;
>> identifier tmp;
>> expression ptr;
>> expression y,e;
>> type T;
>> @@
>>
>> - tmp = cpu_to_le16(y);
>>
>> <+... when != tmp
>> (
>> - memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp, \(2\|sizeof(u16)\|sizeof(__le16)\|sizeof(e16)\));
>> + put_unaligned_le16(y,ptr);
>> |
>> - memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp, ...);
>> + put_unaligned_le16(y,ptr);
>> )
>> ...+>
>> ? tmp = e
>>
>> @@ type T; identifier a.tmp; @@
>>
>> - T tmp;
>> ...when != tmp
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar<[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Changes since v1:
>> <asm/unaligned.h> has arch-specific knowlege of which of
>> the implementations needs to be used. So, include it instaed
>> of<linux/unaligned/access_ok.h>.
>> Changes since v2:
>> Fix typing mistake in subject
>>
>> drivers/nfc/port100.c | 6 ++----
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nfc/port100.c b/drivers/nfc/port100.c
>> index 4ac4d31..440f0f3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nfc/port100.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nfc/port100.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>> #include<linux/module.h>
>> #include<linux/usb.h>
>> #include<net/nfc/digital.h>
>> +#include<asm/unaligned.h>
>>
>> #define VERSION "0.1"
>>
>> @@ -1136,7 +1137,6 @@ static int port100_in_send_cmd(struct nfc_digital_dev *ddev,
>> {
>> struct port100 *dev = nfc_digital_get_drvdata(ddev);
>> struct port100_cb_arg *cb_arg;
>> - __le16 timeout;
>>
>> cb_arg = kzalloc(sizeof(struct port100_cb_arg), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!cb_arg)
>> @@ -1145,9 +1145,7 @@ static int port100_in_send_cmd(struct nfc_digital_dev *ddev,
>> cb_arg->complete_cb = cb;
>> cb_arg->complete_arg = arg;
>>
>> - timeout = cpu_to_le16(_timeout * 10);
>> -
>> - memcpy(skb_push(skb, sizeof(__le16)),&timeout, sizeof(__le16));
>> + put_unaligned_le16(_timeout * 10, skb_push(skb, sizeof(__le16)));
>>
>> return port100_send_cmd_async(dev, PORT100_CMD_IN_COMM_RF, skb,
>> port100_in_comm_rf_complete, cb_arg);
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>
> Hello...Can someone please review my patch so that I can have idea
> about I am on a right way or not??
> I think this is missed by developers.
Generally that's not how it works. You either get comments or not. It
may also help to send the patch to the maintainer, ie. Samuel Ortiz.
Regards,
Arend
> Thank You.
>