netdev - Re: [PATCH] realtek: Add switch variable to 'switch case not processed' messages

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:   Sat, 24 Sep 2016 16:35:24 -0400
From:   Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
        Chaoming Li <chaoming_li@...lsil.com.cn>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] realtek: Add switch variable to 'switch case not processed' messages

Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 14:06 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On 09/24/2016 12:32 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
>> o Reindent all the switch/case blocks to a more normal
>>   kernel style (git diff -w would show no changes here)
>> That sounds like busy work to me, but if you want to do it, go ahead.
>
> It's really just to make the comparison case block reductions
> easier to verify for later steps done
>
>> > o cast, spacing and parenthesis reductions
>> >   Lots of odd and somewhat unique styles in various
>> >   drivers, looks like too many individual authors without
>> >   a style guide / code enforcer using slightly different
>> >   personalized code.  Glancing at the code, it looks to be
>> >   similar logic, just written in different styles.
>> Same comment.
>
> Same rationale
>
>> > o Logic changes like
>> >   from:
>> >     if (foo) func(..., bar, ...); else func(..., baz, ...);
>> >   to:
>> >     func(..., foo ? bar : baz, ...);
>> >   to make the case statement code blocks more consistent
>> >   and emit somewhat smaller object code.
>> I find if .. else constructs much easier to read than the cond ? xxxx : yyyy 
>> form. I would reject any such patches.
>
> <shrug> I think object code reduction generally a good thing
> but then again, I'm not a maintainer here.

I missed this part, but I am with Larry here - 'foo ? bar : boo' are
just obfuscating the code and far less clear than if or switch
statements.

Jes