linux-kernel - RE: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: nfit: remove redundant assignment if nfit

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Mon, 13 Aug 2018 02:53:24 +0000
From:   Ocean HY1 He <hehy1@...ovo.com>
To:     "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com" <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        "oceanhehy@...il.com" <oceanhehy@...il.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [External]  Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: nfit: remove redundant
 assignment if nfit_mem found



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Verma, Vishal L <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2018 7:46 AM
> To: Williams, Dan J <dan.j.williams@...el.com>; ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com;
> oceanhehy@...il.com; Jiang, Dave <dave.jiang@...el.com>; lenb@...nel.org;
> rjw@...ysocki.net
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org; linux-
> acpi@...r.kernel.org; Ocean HY1 He <hehy1@...ovo.com>
> Subject: [External] Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: nfit: remove redundant assignment if
> nfit_mem found
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 04:44 -0400, oceanhehy@...il.com wrote:
> > From: Ocean He <hehy1@...ovo.com>
> >
> > When nfit_mem is found via list_for_each_entry, it has already been
> > assigned valid value. There is no need to assign it again in the
> > following
> > codes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ocean He <hehy1@...ovo.com>
> > ---
> > v1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10553277/
> > v2: Sorry for noise. I got an email problem, so I have to resend to
> > loop
> > linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org.
> >
> >  drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c | 4 +---
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > index 7c47900..85dde54 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > @@ -1048,9 +1048,7 @@ static int __nfit_mem_init(struct
> > acpi_nfit_desc *acpi_desc,
> >  				break;
> >  			}
> >
> > -		if (found)
> > -			nfit_mem = found;
> > -		else {
> > +		if (!found) {
> 
> Hi Ocean,
> 
> While this is technically correct, the old way was easier to read. We
> loop through and find the matching handle. If we found one, then
> nfit_mem was whatever was found. If not, we allocate it.
> 
> With this change, one has to go grok the list_for_.. loop to figure out
> where nfit_mem is coming from. I'd personally prefer to keep the
> existing way..
> 
Hi Verma,

You're right that it took me some time to find out where nfit_mem
was found, when I look these codes at first.

It's reasonable to keep the existing way for well readability.

Thanks,
Ocean.
> >  			nfit_mem = devm_kzalloc(acpi_desc->dev,
> >  					sizeof(*nfit_mem),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> >  			if (!nfit_mem)