On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 21:11 +0100, wilfried.weissm...@gmx.at wrote:
> From: Wilfried Weissmann <wilfried.weissm...@gmx.at>
Every patch should have a description that not only explains what has been
changed but also why these changes have been made. Please add such a
description. Additionally, please also fix spelling of the patch subject
("endianness").
> ---
> drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_94xx.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_94xx.c b/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_94xx.c
> index 7de5d8d75..926086f39 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_94xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/mvsas/mv_94xx.c
> @@ -1088,7 +1088,7 @@ static int mvs_94xx_gpio_write(struct mvs_prv_info
> *mvs_prv,
> * if bit is set then create a mask with the first
> * bit of the drive set in the mask ...
> */
> - u32 bit = (write_data[i/8] & (1 << (i&(8-1)))) ?
> + u32 bit = (write_data[3-(i/8)] & (1 << (i&(8-1)))) ?
> 1<<(24-drive*8) : 0;
The next person who reads this code but who has not followed the discussion
of this patch will have a hard time figuring out the purpose of the "3 - ".
Please consider to use get_unaligned_?e32(), swab32() or similar to make this
code easier to read.
> /*
> @@ -1132,7 +1132,7 @@ static int mvs_94xx_gpio_write(struct mvs_prv_info
> *mvs_prv,
> - be32_to_cpu(((u32 *) write_data)[i]));
> + le32_to_cpu(((u32 *) write_data)[i]));
Have the changes in this patch been verified with sparse? I expect that sparse
will complain about this code. Please use get_unaligned_le32() instead of open-
coding it.
Thanks,
Bart.
