linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.20] isdn-capi: Use ARRAY

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:	Tue, 6 Feb 2007 22:18:14 +0100
From:	Philippe De Muyter <phdm@...qel.be>
To:	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, kkeil@...e.de,
	kai.germaschewski@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	isdn4linux@...tserv.isdn4linux.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.20] isdn-capi: Use ARRAY_SIZE macro when appropriate

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:41:30PM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 09:52:17AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 18:04 +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > > A patch to use ARRAY_SIZE macro already defined in kernel.h
> > > Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <darwish.07@...il.com>
> [...]
> > > -    int nelem = sizeof(procfsentries)/sizeof(procfsentries[0]);
> > > +    int nelem = ARRAY_SIZE(procfsentries);
> > >      int i;
> > >  
> > >      for (i=0; i < nelem; i++) {
> > 
> > For these patches, perhaps you can eliminate the temporary
> > variable and change the loop to the more common form of
> > 
> > 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(array); i++) {
> 
> Thanks, I think it's better too. Here's the modified patch.
> 
> A patch to use ARRAY_SIZE macro when appropriate.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <darwish.07@...il.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c b/drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c
> index d22c022..87fe89c 100644
> --- a/drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c
> +++ b/drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c
> @@ -1456,10 +1456,9 @@ static struct procfsentries {
>  
>  static void __init proc_init(void)
>  {
> -    int nelem = sizeof(procfsentries)/sizeof(procfsentries[0]);
>      int i;
>  
> -    for (i=0; i < nelem; i++) {
> +    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(procfsentries); i++) {
>          struct procfsentries *p = procfsentries + i;
>  	p->procent = create_proc_entry(p->name, p->mode, NULL);
>  	if (p->procent) p->procent->read_proc = p->read_proc;
> @@ -1468,10 +1467,9 @@ static void __init proc_init(void)
>  
>  static void __exit proc_exit(void)
>  {
> -    int nelem = sizeof(procfsentries)/sizeof(procfsentries[0]);
>      int i;
>  
> -    for (i=nelem-1; i >= 0; i--) {
> +    for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(procfsentries) - 1; i >= 0; i--) {

I would write such decrementing loops as :

       for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(procfsentries); --i >= 0; ) {

Long time ago, that produced better code.  I did not check recently though.

>          struct procfsentries *p = procfsentries + i;
>  	if (p->procent) {
>  	   remove_proc_entry(p->name, NULL);
> diff --git a/drivers/isdn/capi/capidrv.c b/drivers/isdn/capi/capidrv.c
> index c4d438c..cff5d1e 100644
> --- a/drivers/isdn/capi/capidrv.c
> +++ b/drivers/isdn/capi/capidrv.c
> @@ -2218,10 +2218,9 @@ static struct procfsentries {
>  
>  static void __init proc_init(void)
>  {
> -    int nelem = sizeof(procfsentries)/sizeof(procfsentries[0]);
>      int i;
>  
> -    for (i=0; i < nelem; i++) {
> +    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(procfsentries); i++) {
>          struct procfsentries *p = procfsentries + i;
>  	p->procent = create_proc_entry(p->name, p->mode, NULL);
>  	if (p->procent) p->procent->read_proc = p->read_proc;
> @@ -2230,10 +2229,9 @@ static void __init proc_init(void)
>  
>  static void __exit proc_exit(void)
>  {
> -    int nelem = sizeof(procfsentries)/sizeof(procfsentries[0]);
>      int i;
>  
> -    for (i=nelem-1; i >= 0; i--) {
> +    for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(procfsentries) - 1; i >= 0; i--) {

Same here

>          struct procfsentries *p = procfsentries + i;
>  	if (p->procent) {
>  	   remove_proc_entry(p->name, NULL);
> 
> 
Philippe
-
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/