linux-kernel - Re: Surprising Code In sound/core/pcm

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: <488104C9.6080108@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:02:01 +0200
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	Soumyadip Das Mahapatra <soumya.linux@...oo.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Surprising Code In sound/core/pcm_native.c In Recent Git Tree

Soumyadip Das Mahapatra wrote:
> When i was reading the code in sound/core/pcm_native.c in
> recent git tree, i got stuck in  line no 3258. It is something
> like this
> snd_assert(substream != NULL, goto out);
> 
> That (goto statement) surprised me for a while unless i came to
> know snd_assert() is a macro (as expected!). Previous version
> too had a return statement in it.
> 
> The point is that can we have a nicer code? Because this type
> of code is sometimes __CONFUSING__.

Curious.  The "goto out", "return -EIO" and friends are not compiled in 
if CONFIG_SND_DEBUG is not set.

Why would anybody want a debug macro to exit from functions?

BTW, grep tells me there are 829 occurrences of snd_assert in linux 2.6.26.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- -=== =--=-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/