[PATCH v3] can: ucan: Use two USB endpoint API functions rather than duplicating their implementations

[PATCH v3] can: ucan: Use two USB endpoint API functions rather than duplicating their implementations

[Markus Elfring]

From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 08:56:51 +0200

* Reuse existing functionality from usb_endpoint_is_bulk_in()
  and usb_endpoint_is_bulk_out() instead of keeping duplicate source code.

* Omit two comment lines which became redundant with this refactoring.

The source code was transformed by using the Coccinelle software.

Reviewed-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
---

V3:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20250626-opalescent-tireless-locust-564d48-mkl@pengutronix.de/
* Use an other email address for the tag “Signed-off-by”.
* Provide the patch version not as a direct reply to a development discussion.

V2:
Further change possibilities were taken better into account for
the USB endpoint API with the help of Vincent Mailhol.


 drivers/net/can/usb/ucan.c | 12 ++----------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/ucan.c b/drivers/net/can/usb/ucan.c
index 07406daf7c88..0935a9b540d6 100644
--- a/drivers/net/can/usb/ucan.c
+++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/ucan.c
@@ -1351,19 +1351,11 @@ static int ucan_probe(struct usb_interface *intf,
 	out_ep_size = 0;
 	for (i = 0; i < iface_desc->desc.bNumEndpoints; i++) {
 		ep = &iface_desc->endpoint[i].desc;
-
-		if (((ep->bEndpointAddress & USB_ENDPOINT_DIR_MASK) != 0) &&
-		    ((ep->bmAttributes & USB_ENDPOINT_XFERTYPE_MASK) ==
-		     USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_BULK)) {
-			/* In Endpoint */
+		if (usb_endpoint_is_bulk_in(ep)) {
 			in_ep_addr = ep->bEndpointAddress;
 			in_ep_addr &= USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
 			in_ep_size = le16_to_cpu(ep->wMaxPacketSize);
-		} else if (((ep->bEndpointAddress & USB_ENDPOINT_DIR_MASK) ==
-			    0) &&
-			   ((ep->bmAttributes & USB_ENDPOINT_XFERTYPE_MASK) ==
-			    USB_ENDPOINT_XFER_BULK)) {
-			/* Out Endpoint */
+		} else if (usb_endpoint_is_bulk_out(ep)) {
 			out_ep_addr = ep->bEndpointAddress;
 			out_ep_addr &= USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK;
 			out_ep_size = le16_to_cpu(ep->wMaxPacketSize);
-- 
2.50.0

Re: [PATCH v3] can: ucan: Use two USB endpoint API functions rather than duplicating their implementations

[Vincent Mailhol]

On 28/06/2025 at 16:19, Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 08:56:51 +0200

Your patch doesn't pass the ./script/checkpath.pl script :(

  WARNING: From:/Signed-off-by: email address mismatch: 'From: Markus Elfring
<elfring@users.sourceforge.net>' != 'Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring
<Markus.Elfring@web.de>'

  total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 21 lines checked

Please use the same email address:

  - To send the patch

  - For the patch author

  - For the Signed-off-by tag

> * Reuse existing functionality from usb_endpoint_is_bulk_in()
>   and usb_endpoint_is_bulk_out() instead of keeping duplicate source code.
> 
> * Omit two comment lines which became redundant with this refactoring.
> 
> The source code was transformed by using the Coccinelle software.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol

Re: [v3] can: ucan: Use two USB endpoint API functions rather than duplicating their implementations

[Markus Elfring]

> Please use the same email address:

You may omit the header specification “From:” (if you would find other presented
information acceptable), don't you?

What does hinder you to support additional email addresses better?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [v3] can: ucan: Use two USB endpoint API functions rather than duplicating their implementations

[Vincent Mailhol]

On 29/06/2025 at 16:51, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Please use the same email address:
> 
> You may omit the header specification “From:” (if you would find other presented
> information acceptable), don't you?

You are sending a patch which has some checkpatch warnings and you think it is
our duty to fix your mistakes? This is not how it works.

> What does hinder you to support additional email addresses better?

It is your behaviour and your unwillingness to follow the guidance from the
maintainers which hinders me. Use whatever e-mail address you want, but if you
fancy mixing different e-mail addresses, then just stop posting.

I do not want to waste any more time arguing with you.

Nacked-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>

(no need to reply to this thread, I will not read your post anymore).


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol

Re: [v3] can: ucan: Use two USB endpoint API functions rather than duplicating their implementations

[Markus Elfring]

>>> Please use the same email address:
>>
>> You may omit the header specification “From:” (if you would find other presented
>> information acceptable), don't you?
> 
> You are sending a patch which has some checkpatch warnings

A special warning was mentioned.


>                                                            and you think it is
> our duty to fix your mistakes?

It depends …

There can different views occur according to such communication aspects.


>                                This is not how it works.

See also:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.16-rc3#n513
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch/2.48.0#Documentation/git-format-patch.txt---from


Regards,
Markus

Re: [v3] can: ucan: Use two USB endpoint API functions rather than duplicating their implementations

[Markus Elfring]

>                             … Use whatever e-mail address you want, but if you
> fancy mixing different e-mail addresses, then just stop posting.

See also:
Markus_Elfring@Sonne:…/Projekte/Linux/next-analyses> git log --oneline --author=elfring@users.sourceforge.net | wc -l
1263


Regards,
Markus