On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 09:13:45 +0000 Tzung-Bi Shih <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 08:42:41AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > + ((struct ec_params_get_cmd_versions *)buf->data)->cmd = cmd; > > > + > > > + ret = cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(ec_dev, buf); > > > if (ret >= 0) > > > - *mask = buf.resp.version_mask; > > > + *mask = ((struct ec_response_get_cmd_versions > > > *)buf->data)->version_mask; > > > return ret; > > > } > > > > Since "params" is used twice, I'd say do like the other patch and assign > > it to a new variable: > > > > struct ec_response_get_cmd_versions *params = buf->data; > > ... > > params->cmd = cmd; > > ... > > *mask = params->version_mask; > > Not a pushback for introducing new variables. FWIW, it uses "param" and > "response" only once. Given that reply I'm assuming Kees is fine with this. Applied. Thanks, Jonathan
