Re: [PATCH] usb: storage: ene_ub6250: Fix right shift warnings

[Abhishek Tamboli <abhishektamboli9@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 02:19:54PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:34:45PM +0530, Abhishek Tamboli wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 10:04:33AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:15:28AM +0200, 'Oliver Neukum' via USB Mass Storage on Linux wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On 30.07.24 19:56, Abhishek Tamboli wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 09:09:05AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > 1. use a constant, where a constant is used
> > > > > I think you are suggesting that I should replace hard-coded values like the
> > > > > buffer size with named constants. For example:
> > > > > 
> > > > > #define BUF_SIZE 8
> > > > > unsigned char buf[BUF_SIZE];
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, but the constant we need to look at here is bl_len.
> > > > This is a variable needlessly.
> > > 
> > > The code in ms_scsi_read_capacity() is written that way to be consistent 
> > > with the sd_scsi_read_capacity() routine.  Or maybe it was just 
> > > copied-and-pasted, and then the variable's type was changed for no good 
> > > reason.
> > > 
> > > Replacing the variable with a constant won't make much difference.  The 
> > > compiler will realize that bl_len has a constant value and will generate 
> > > appropriate code anyway.  I think just changing the type is a fine fix.
> > > 
> > > > > > 2. use the macros for converting endianness
> > > > > Can I use macros like cpu_to_le32 for converting the bl_num and bl_len values.
> > > > > Should I replace all instances of manual bitwise shifts with these macros?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes.
> > > > 
> > > > > For example:
> > > > > 
> > > > >      u32 bl_len = 0x200;
> > > > >      buf[0] = cpu_to_le32(bl_num) >> 24;
> > > > >      buf[4] = cpu_to_le32(bl_len) >> 24;
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is using cpu_to_le32 appropriate for the data format required by this
> > > > > device?
> > > > 
> > > > Well, the format is big endian. So, cpu_to_be32() will be required.
> > > 
> > > Better yet, use put_unaligned_be32().
> > Would you recommend submitting a follow-up patch to incorporate this change, or should I leave it as is for now.
> 
> You can submit another patch as a clean-up, if you want.  But as I said, 
> it isn't needed.
> 
> > >However, there's nothing really 
> > >wrong with the code as it stands. It doesn't need to be changed now.
> > As you mentioned there's no need to change the code, So my initial patch is okay as is?
> 
> It is as far as I'm concerned.  Obviously Oliver has a different 
> opinion.  But I'm the Maintainer of the usb-storage driver, so my 
> opinion counts for more than his does, in this case.  :-)
Thank you for your clarification and support. I appreciate your feedback.
I'm glad to know that my initial patch is acceptable to you.

Thanks & Regards
Abhishek Tamboli