Re: [PATCH v2] staging: rtl8723bs: Use % 4096 instead of & 0xfff

Samuel Abraham <[email protected]> Sat, 5 Apr 2025 15:55:18 +0100
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.outreachy,dev.linux.lists.linux-staging,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <CADYq+fYMPGFdFvNPyo_XoNdMhh6qu=h10Gb2EDc2Jw=JK9iXig@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Apr 5, 2025 at 1:30 PM Julia Lawall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 5, 2025 at 11:23 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 12:09:59AM +0000, Abraham Samuel Adekunle wrote:
> > > > Replace the bitwise AND operator `&` with a modulo
> > > > operator `%` and decimal number to make the upper limit visible
> > > > and clear what the semantic of it is.
> > >
> > > Eeek, no.  We all "know" what & means (it's a bit mask to handle the
> > > issues involved), and we all do NOT know that % will do the same thing
> > > at all.
> >
> > And that is exactly the purpose of the change. The % 4096 makes it
> > clearer on what's going on, i.e. we are doing indexes that are wrapped
> > around the given number.
>
> Ah, OK.  Samuel, indeed, the log message was going in that direction.  But
> probably it should be more clear.  Why is 4096 the upper limit in this
> case, for example.

Okay thank you Julia.
So I can add something like this to the commit message?

"Replace the bitwise AND operator `&` with a modulo
operator `%` and decimal number to make the upper limit visible
and clear that we are doing indexes that are wrapped around the given number"?

You also said I should add a patch for the white space around binary operators.
I did it together because the changes were on the same line.
Should I still add a second patch for that change?
Thanks

Adekunle.