Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:12:25 +0100 | From | Michael Roocroft <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue |
| |
On 10/13/14 00:01, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sun, 2014-10-12 at 21:49 +0100, Mike Roocroft wrote: >> Fixed a coding style issue. > [] >> diff --git a/crypto/gf128mul.c b/crypto/gf128mul.c > [] >> @@ -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(-) > > diff --git a/crypto/gf128mul.c b/crypto/gf128mul.c > index 5276607..90cf17d 100644 > --- a/crypto/gf128mul.c > +++ b/crypto/gf128mul.c > @@ -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); > > > 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.
| |