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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1166106259.6748.217.camel@gullible>
Date:	Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:24:19 -0500
From:	Ben Collins <ben.collins@...ntu.com>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	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

On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 23:45 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > 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.

The rest of it was just for consistency sake.
-
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/