linux-kernel - Re: [rfc 03/45] Generic CPU operations: Core piece

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711201235430.26745@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:36:57 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
cc:	ak@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, travis@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc 03/45] Generic CPU operations: Core piece

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> > But (x) is returned to the "caller" of the macro so it should be specially 
> > marged.
> > 
> 
> I don't think that it really matters.. the preprocessor already wraps
> all the ({ }) in a single statement, doesn't it ?

No it does not matter for the preprocessor. It matters for readability 
because I want to see that this is the return value.

> Since checkpatch.pl emits a warning when a one liner if() uses brackets,
> I guess compactness of code is preferred to a consistent style.

I wish someone would fix it. Its giving so much false positives that its 
useless for me.
-
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/