linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] smi_detector: A System Management Interrupt detector

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: <1244588008.30733.94.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:53:27 -0400
From:	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] smi_detector: A System Management Interrupt
 detector

On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 14:56 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:50:01 -0400
> Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org> wrote:
> 
> > > > +	if (0 != err)
> > > 
> > > 	if (err != 0)
> > > 
> > > or
> > > 
> > > 	if (err)
> > > 
> > > would be more typical.
> > 
> > The former runs the risk of assignment,
> 
> yup, which is why gcc will warn if you do
> 
> 	if (err = 0)
> 
> If you really meant to do that, then gcc can be silenced by
> double-parenthesising.  We consider this "good enough" for kernel
> purposes, so we generally don't use the `if (CONSTANT == variable)' trick.

Ah, yes, good point.

Jon.


--
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/