linux-kernel - Re: kernel coding style for if ... else which cross #ifdef

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: <20080523210518.GD6749@1wt.eu>
Date:	Fri, 23 May 2008 23:05:18 +0200
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel coding style for if ... else which cross #ifdef

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:49:12PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:42:28PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 02:11:43PM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> > > A question splitting "else" and "if" on distinct lines vs. using an
> > > extra line and extra #else came up as I was reviewing a proposed cifs
> > > patch.   Which is the preferred style?
> > >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_SOMETHING
> > >    if (foo)
> > >       something ...
> > >    else
> > > #endif
> > >    if ((mode & S_IWUGO) == 0)
> > > 
> > > or alternatively
> > > 
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_SOMETHING
> > >    if (foo)
> > >       something ...
> > >    else if ((mode & S_IWUGO) == 0)
> > > #else
> > >    if ((mode & S_IWUGO) == 0)
> > > #endif
> > 
> > The second one is dangerous because if code evolves, chances are that
> > only one of the two identical lines will be updated.
> > 
> > At least the first one is clearly readable.
> 
> I would consider the first one much harder to read since you can _very_ 
> easily miss that the "if" is in an "else" clause and completely misread 
> the code.

speaking about readability, yes I agree (the second "if" ought to be
indented for the eye to catch it). I'm worrying about the risk of
code being asymetrically added between the two ifs in the second form.

> > But if you have tons of
> > places with the same construct, it's better to create a macro which
> > will inhibit the if branch, which gcc will happily optimize away.
> > For instance :
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FOO
> > #define FOO_ENABLED 1
> > #else
> > #define FOO_ENABLED 0
> > #endif
> > 
> > if (FOO_ENABLED && foo)
> >     something
> > else if ((mode & S_IWUGO) == 0)
> >    ...
> >...
> 
> I'd also say that's the best solution.

When we both agree on something, it must be a really good solution :-)

> cu
> Adrian

Cheers,
Willy

--
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/