From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A12C47404 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 595B520659 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:15:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 595B520659 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=m3y3r.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3411985F7C; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:15:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1OL7Ym8yaiBW; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ash.osuosl.org (ash.osuosl.org [140.211.166.34]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104FB85F63; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by ash.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D8F1BF44A for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:15:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36DD85C92 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:15:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sl9ZTCxi92w9 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:15:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from www17.your-server.de (www17.your-server.de [213.133.104.17]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C7EB85ADF for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:15:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sslproxy01.your-server.de ([88.198.220.130]) by www17.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iHVfQ-0004KU-TJ; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 18:15:24 +0200 Received: from [2a02:908:4c22:ec00:8ad5:993:4cda:a89f] (helo=localhost.localdomain) by sslproxy01.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iHVfQ-00055A-Hj; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 18:15:24 +0200 From: Thomas Meyer To: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wlan-ng: p80211wep.c: use lib/crc32 References: <20191006140745.9952-1-thomas@m3y3r.de> <20191007140900.GX22609@kadam> Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 18:15:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20191007140900.GX22609@kadam> (Dan Carpenter's message of "Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:09:00 +0300") Message-ID: <87lftwy1k4.fsf@m3y3r.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Authenticated-Sender: thomas@m3y3r.de X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.101.4/25595/Mon Oct 7 10:28:44 2019) X-BeenThere: driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Driver Project Developer List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: "devel" Dan Carpenter writes: > On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 04:07:45PM +0200, Thomas Meyer wrote: >> Use lib/crc32 instead of another implementation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Meyer > > I always get annoyed whenever anyone asks if people have tested their > patches, but have you tested this? no annoynence on my side, but... :-) Good question. I tell you what I did and then you tell me if I did test! So I did this: I did write a small C program that does contain a small byte buffer and the extracted CRC32 logic from the wlan driver. The program does calculate the CRC32 sum with the extracted logic and by calling crc32_le function. but values are the same. But as I don't own the hardware I couldn't do a real test with WEP (as far as I understand only WEP on this hardware would be affected.) So a better test would be to find someone which actually owns the hardware and could test the change. so... what do you think? with kind regards thomas >It's hard for me to review it > because I don't have the relevant background and because I'm a little > bit stupid. > > regards, > dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel