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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20071011212921.f97c8423.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:29:21 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> To: Michael Krufky <mkrufky@...uxtv.org> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, video4linux-list@...hat.com, daniel@...u.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, holger@...u.de, v4l-dvb maintainer list <v4l-dvb-maintainer@...uxtv.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [v4l-dvb-maintainer] [PATCH 3/3] V4L: cinergyT2, remove bad usage of ERESTARTSYS On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:18:28 -0400 Michael Krufky wrote: > Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Hi Jiri, > > > > Em Seg, 2007-10-08 às 13:41 +0100, Jiri Slaby escreveu: > > > >> cinergyT2, remove bad usage of ERESTARTSYS > >> > >> test of cinergyt2->disconnect_pending doesn't ensure pending signal and so > >> ERESTARTSYS would reach userspace, which is not permitted. Change it to > >> EAGAIN > >> > >> > > > > checkpatch.pl is complaining about your changeset: > > > > do not use assignment in if condition > > #82: FILE: drivers/media/dvb/cinergyT2/cinergyT2.c:492: > > + if ((err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&cinergyt2->wq_sem))) > > > > do not use assignment in if condition > > #86: FILE: drivers/media/dvb/cinergyT2/cinergyT2.c:495: > > + if ((err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&cinergyt2->sem))) > > > > do not use assignment in if condition > > #133: FILE: drivers/media/dvb/cinergyT2/cinergyT2.c:1036: > > + if ((err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&cinergyt2->wq_sem))) > > > > do not use assignment in if condition > > #137: FILE: drivers/media/dvb/cinergyT2/cinergyT2.c:1039: > > + if ((err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&cinergyt2->sem))) > > Is this illegal as per kernel codingstyle? I could understand if we may > want to avoid this sort of thing for the sake of code readability, but > this seems 100% proper to me, especially considering that we're simply > trying to catch an error return code. Anyway, it's not strictly from CodingStyle. The closest that CodingStyle has to say about it IMO is this: "Don't put multiple assignments on a single line either. Kernel coding style is super simple. Avoid tricky expressions." Also, Andrew Morton and Christoph Hellwig push for splitting up the if-assignment lines, so it's a trend over the past few (probably) years. It's not real new. > One of the things that I really enjoy about the c programming language > is the fact that you can string many operations together into a single > statement through the use of logic. I hate the thought of a patch being > nacked because of the above. :-/ so you like the challenge of reading obfuscated code? At any rate, it's rare that a patch is nacked only due to coding style, unless it's blatant and occurs many times (like throughout the entire source file). > If this is indeed kernel codingstyle, then IMHO, we should let it slide > for catching error return codes. Nope. --- ~Randy - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists