linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.20-rc1] ib_verbs: Use explicit if-else statements to avoid errors with do-while macros

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:45:03 -0800
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Ben Collins <ben.collins@...ntu.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.20-rc1] ib_verbs: Use explicit if-else statements to avoid errors with do-while macros

 > IOW, do ; while(0) / do { } while (0)  is not a proper way to do a macro
 > that imitates a function returning void.
 > 
 > Objections?

None from me, although the ternary ? : is a pretty odd way to write

	if (blah)
		do_this_void_function();
	else
		do_that_void_function();

so I'm in favor of that half of the patch anyway.  It's my fault for
not noticing that part of the patch in the first place.

Changing the non-void ? : constructions is just churn, but there's no
sense changing it again now that the patch is merged.

 - R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/