[PATCH] Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue

[PATCH] Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue

[Mike Roocroft]

Fixed a coding style issue.

Signed-off-by: Mike Roocroft <mike.linux@btinternet.com>
---
 crypto/gf128mul.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/crypto/gf128mul.c b/crypto/gf128mul.c
index 5276607..b143d84 100644
--- 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) ^ \
-- 
2.1.0

[PATCH] Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue

[Mike Roocroft]

Fixed a coding style issue.

Signed-off-by: Mike Roocroft <mike.linux@btinternet.com>
---
 crypto/gf128mul.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/crypto/gf128mul.c b/crypto/gf128mul.c
index 5276607..b143d84 100644
--- 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) ^ \
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH] Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue

[Joe Perches]

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);

Re: [PATCH] Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue

[Michael Roocroft]

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.

Re: [PATCH] Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 21:12 +0100, Michael Roocroft wrote:
> 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,

Hi Mike.

> 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.

checkpatch cleanliness, while OK for some parts of the
kernel, should not be an end-goal.

checkpatch is really a tool to "check patches".

If you want to submit neatening only patches, please
do your changes in drivers/staging/

Otherwise, please look for code that isn't simply a
style neatening bit, but something that actively makes
reading the code easier, makes the object code smaller
or faster, reduces complexity, adds extensibility,
etc, etc...

cheers, Joe

Re: [PATCH] Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue

[Michael Roocroft]

On 10/13/14 21:15, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 21:12 +0100, Michael Roocroft wrote:
>> 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,
> Hi Mike.
>
>> 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.
> checkpatch cleanliness, while OK for some parts of the
> kernel, should not be an end-goal.
>
> checkpatch is really a tool to "check patches".
>
> If you want to submit neatening only patches, please
> do your changes in drivers/staging/
>
> Otherwise, please look for code that isn't simply a
> style neatening bit, but something that actively makes
> reading the code easier, makes the object code smaller
> or faster, reduces complexity, adds extensibility,
> etc, etc...
>
> cheers, Joe
>
>
Hi Joe

Thanks for the Advice, I fully intend to making more meaningful contributions
when my confidence in writing C is better than it is at the moment. I'll concentrate
on making any changes to staging whilst I learn and get to grips with git, and
continue to look through the rest of the kernel tree as a learning exercise.

I am extremely new to all this and a little overwhelmed, but by looking and not doing
anyhing i'll never learn anything.

Re: [PATCH] Crypto: gf128mul : fixed a parentheses coding style issue

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 21:52 +0100, Michael Roocroft wrote:
> I fully intend to making more meaningful contributions
> when my confidence in writing C is better than it is at the moment. I'll concentrate
> on making any changes to staging whilst I learn and get to grips with git, and
> continue to look through the rest of the kernel tree as a learning exercise.

Sounds like a good plan to me.  welcome btw.

> by looking and not doing anything i'll never learn anything.

True words... 

cheers, Joe