2019-07-19 11:37:22

by Ajay Singh

Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: Merge memcpy + le32_to_cpus to get_unaligned_le32

On 7/19/2019 1:40 PM, Chuhong Yuan wrote:
>
> Merge the combo use of memcpy and le32_to_cpus.
> Use get_unaligned_le32 instead.
> This simplifies the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuhong Yuan <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> index d72fdd333050..12fb4add05ec 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> @@ -1038,8 +1038,7 @@ void wilc_wfi_p2p_rx(struct wilc_vif *vif, u8 *buff, u32 size)
> s32 freq;
> __le16 fc;
>
> - memcpy(&header, (buff - HOST_HDR_OFFSET), HOST_HDR_OFFSET);
> - le32_to_cpus(&header);
> + header = get_unaligned_le32(buff - HOST_HDR_OFFSET);
> pkt_offset = GET_PKT_OFFSET(header);
>
> if (pkt_offset & IS_MANAGMEMENT_CALLBACK) {
>

Thanks for sending the patches.

The code change looks okay to me. Just a minor comment, avoid the use of
same subject line for different patches.

Regards,
Ajay

2019-07-19 11:47:48

by Chuhong Yuan

Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: Merge memcpy + le32_to_cpus to get_unaligned_le32

<[email protected]> 于2019年7月19日周五 下午7:34写道：
>
> On 7/19/2019 1:40 PM, Chuhong Yuan wrote:
> >
> > Merge the combo use of memcpy and le32_to_cpus.
> > Use get_unaligned_le32 instead.
> > This simplifies the code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chuhong Yuan <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c | 3 +--
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> > index d72fdd333050..12fb4add05ec 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> > @@ -1038,8 +1038,7 @@ void wilc_wfi_p2p_rx(struct wilc_vif *vif, u8 *buff, u32 size)
> > s32 freq;
> > __le16 fc;
> >
> > - memcpy(&header, (buff - HOST_HDR_OFFSET), HOST_HDR_OFFSET);
> > - le32_to_cpus(&header);
> > + header = get_unaligned_le32(buff - HOST_HDR_OFFSET);
> > pkt_offset = GET_PKT_OFFSET(header);
> >
> > if (pkt_offset & IS_MANAGMEMENT_CALLBACK) {
> >
>
> Thanks for sending the patches.
>
> The code change looks okay to me. Just a minor comment, avoid the use of
> same subject line for different patches.

These two patches are in the same subsystem and solve the same problem.
I splitted them into two patches by mistake since I did not notice the problems
in the second patch when I sent the first one.
Should I merge the two patches and resend?

>
> Regards,
> Ajay

2019-07-19 12:06:27

by Ajay Singh

Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: Merge memcpy + le32_to_cpus to get_unaligned_le32

On 7/19/2019 5:16 PM, Chuhong Yuan wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> 于2019年7月19日周五 下午7:34写道：
>>
>> On 7/19/2019 1:40 PM, Chuhong Yuan wrote:
>>>
>>> Merge the combo use of memcpy and le32_to_cpus.
>>> Use get_unaligned_le32 instead.
>>> This simplifies the code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chuhong Yuan <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c | 3 +--
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
>>> index d72fdd333050..12fb4add05ec 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
>>> @@ -1038,8 +1038,7 @@ void wilc_wfi_p2p_rx(struct wilc_vif *vif, u8 *buff, u32 size)
>>> s32 freq;
>>> __le16 fc;
>>>
>>> - memcpy(&header, (buff - HOST_HDR_OFFSET), HOST_HDR_OFFSET);
>>> - le32_to_cpus(&header);
>>> + header = get_unaligned_le32(buff - HOST_HDR_OFFSET);
>>> pkt_offset = GET_PKT_OFFSET(header);
>>>
>>> if (pkt_offset & IS_MANAGMEMENT_CALLBACK) {
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for sending the patches.
>>
>> The code change looks okay to me. Just a minor comment, avoid the use of
>> same subject line for different patches.
>
> These two patches are in the same subsystem and solve the same problem.
> I splitted them into two patches by mistake since I did not notice the problems
> in the second patch when I sent the first one.
> Should I merge the two patches and resend?
>

Yes, please go ahead, merge the patches and send the updated version.

Regards,
Ajay