linux-kernel - Re: [media] tuners: One check less in m88rs6000t_get_rf

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:	Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:30:46 +0100
From:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [media] tuners: One check less in m88rs6000t_get_rf_strength()
 after error detection

>> Move the jump label directly before the desired log statement
>> so that the variable "ret" will not be checked once more
>> after it was determined that a function call failed.
> 
> Why not avoid both unnecessary ifs

I would find such a fine-tuning also nice in principle at more source code places.


> and the enormous ugliness of a label inside an if by making two returns:
> a return 0 for success and a dev_dbg and return ret for failure?

How should your suggestion finally work when the desired execution success
can be determined for such functions only after several other calls succeeded?

Is consistent checking of failure predicates usually required?

Regards,
Markus
--
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/