Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f65.google.com ([74.125.83.65]:37418 "EHLO mail-pg0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751388AbdJEIem (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2017 04:34:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:04:33 +0530 From: Himanshu Jha To: Kalle Valo Cc: amitkarwar@gmail.com, nishants@marvell.com, gbhat@marvell.com, huxm@marvell.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: Use put_unaligned_le32 Message-ID: <20171005083433.GA11485@himanshu-Vostro-3559> (sfid-20171005_103539_785639_F08B146B) References: <1507141686-5178-1-git-send-email-himanshujha199640@gmail.com> <874lre5a86.fsf@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <874lre5a86.fsf@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 10:23:37AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > Himanshu Jha 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 > > --- > > 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 > > 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