Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] CryptoPkg/BaseCryptLib: remove some duplicate initializations.

["Long, Qin" <qin.long@intel.com>]

The patch was already push @b5a985ca9237b551618cd97b1b71af2fff55e209
I forgot to inform that. Thanks, Laszlo.


Best Regards & Thanks,
LONG, Qin


-----Original Message-----
From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Laszlo Ersek
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 3:51 PM
To: Long, Qin <qin.long@intel.com>; Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
Cc: Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v1 1/1] CryptoPkg/BaseCryptLib: remove some duplicate initializations.

Qin,

On 10/23/17 05:02, Long, Qin wrote:
> This looks good to me.
> Reviewed-by: Long Qin qin.long@intel.com<mailto:qin.long@intel.com>

Do you want me to push the patch, or do you prefer to push it yourself?

Thanks!
Laszlo

> From: Peter Jones [mailto:pjones@redhat.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 2:22 AM
> To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Shi, Steven <steven.shi@intel.com>; Long, 
> Qin <qin.long@intel.com>; Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH v1 1/1] CryptoPkg/BaseCryptLib: remove some duplicate initializations.
> 
>> Assuming the maintainers are fine with the patch as well, I suggest 
>> that they please replace the word "initializations" with 
>> "assignments" in the subject, to be pedantic on the C-lang level.
> 
> Well, that's why I said "initializations" instead of "initializers", 
> but if it's more clear to you, I'm fine with your way.
> 
>> (Side note: I would even move OldSize to a lot tighter scope:
>>
>>> diff --git a/CryptoPkg/Library/BaseCryptLib/Pk/CryptPkcs7Verify.c 
>>> b/CryptoPkg/Library/BaseCryptLib/Pk/CryptPkcs7Verify.c
>>> index d564591cb7f9..31a9ecd59ff6 100644
>>> --- a/CryptoPkg/Library/BaseCryptLib/Pk/CryptPkcs7Verify.c
>>> +++ b/CryptoPkg/Library/BaseCryptLib/Pk/CryptPkcs7Verify.c
>>> @@ -477,7 +477,6 @@ Pkcs7GetCertificatesList (
>>>    UINT8            *CertBuf;
>>>    UINT8            *OldBuf;
>>>    UINTN            BufferSize;
>>> -  UINTN            OldSize;
>>>    UINT8            *SingleCert;
>>>    UINTN            CertSize;
>>>
>>> @@ -612,10 +611,11 @@ Pkcs7GetCertificatesList (
>>>
>>>    if (CtxChain != NULL) {
>>>      BufferSize = sizeof (UINT8);
>>> -    OldSize    = BufferSize;
>>>      CertBuf    = NULL;
>>>
>>>      for (Index = 0; ; Index++) {
>>> +      UINTN OldSize;
>>> +
>>>        Status = X509PopCertificate (CtxChain, &SingleCert, &CertSize);
>>>        if (!Status) {
>>>          break;
>>> @@ -656,10 +656,11 @@ Pkcs7GetCertificatesList (
>>>
>>>    if (CtxUntrusted != NULL) {
>>>      BufferSize = sizeof (UINT8);
>>> -    OldSize    = BufferSize;
>>>      CertBuf    = NULL;
>>>
>>>      for (Index = 0; ; Index++) {
>>> +      UINTN OldSize;
>>> +
>>>        Status = X509PopCertificate (CtxUntrusted, &SingleCert, &CertSize);
>>>        if (!Status) {
>>>          break;
>>
>> However, many edk2 maintainers don't like tight scoping like this.)
> 
> I had considered this and guessed it was probably against the coding 
> style or it would have been done this way already.  IMO it's better in every way.
> 
> --
>   Peter
> 

_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel