From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: me@tobin.cc (Tobin C. Harding)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:59:05 +1100
Subject: patch splitting
In-Reply-To: <62981.1490835302@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <20170330002240.GH25014@eros>
	<62981.1490835302@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <20170330005905.GA8841@eros>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:55:02PM -0400, valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:22:40 +1100, "Tobin C. Harding" said:
> > Is it easier to review this change for correctness if it is three
> > patches or one?
> >
> > TLDR;
> > +	struct wpa_key_t *key = &priv->wpa.key[index];
> >
> > -	memcpy(&priv->wpa.key[index].rx_seq[0], enc->rx_seq, IW_ENCODE_SEQ_MAX_SIZE);
> > +	memcpy(key->rx_seq, enc->rx_seq, IW_ENCODE_SEQ_MAX_SIZE);
> 
> One patch for one thing.
> 
> > Brief description of steps:
> > 1. Add local pointer variable, defined to correct memory location.
> > 2. Use newly defined local variable where suitable.
> > 3. Remove unnecessary address operator (reasoning specified below).
> 
> So, is this 3 things?  Or one thing:
> 
> "Simplify overly-complex first argument to memcpy()"?


Thanks Valdis, very well explained.

Tobin.