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: <200910271120.04597.keil@b1-systems.de> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:20:03 +0200 From: Karsten Keil <keil@...systems.de> To: isdn4linux@...tserv.isdn4linux.de Cc: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, i4ldeveloper@...tserv.isdn4linux.de, Hansjoerg Lipp <hjlipp@....de>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] ser_gigaset: checkpatch cleanup On Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2009 00:59:20 Tilman Schmidt wrote: > Am 26.10.2009 01:54 schrieb Joe Perches: > > On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 20:30 +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote: > >> Duly uglified as demanded by checkpatch.pl. > >> diff --git a/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c > >> b/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c index 3071a52..ac3409e 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c > >> +++ b/drivers/isdn/gigaset/ser-gigaset.c > >> @@ -164,9 +164,15 @@ static void gigaset_modem_fill(unsigned long data) > >> { > >> struct cardstate *cs = (struct cardstate *) data; > >> struct bc_state *bcs; > >> + struct sk_buff *nextskb; > >> int sent = 0; > >> > >> - if (!cs || !(bcs = cs->bcs)) { > >> + if (!cs) { > >> + gig_dbg(DEBUG_OUTPUT, "%s: no cardstate", __func__); > >> + return; > >> + } > >> + bcs = cs->bcs; > >> + if (!bcs) { > >> gig_dbg(DEBUG_OUTPUT, "%s: no cardstate", __func__); > >> return; > >> } > > > > perhaps: > > if (!cs || !cs->bcs) { > > gig_dbg(DEBUG_OUTPUT, "%s: no cardstate", __func__); > > return; > > } > > bcs = cs->bcs; > > That would evaluate cs->bcs twice, and is also, in my experience, gcc should handle this subsequent double evaluation well enough. > significantly more prone to easily overlooked typos which result in > checking a different pointer in the if statement than the one that's > actually used in the subsequent assignment. > Yes this may happen, but more often a = in if statements should be a ==. The kernel code style says only one statement per line, which implies no assignments in if statements, so we should follow this. The checkpatch.pl script complain about these issues. Yes sometimes in the past (while preparing some old code for kernel submit) I was not very happy about all these rules, it take lot time to reach zero reports from checkpatch. But it make lot of sense in the long term, currently I have to debug code written without any code style, it is really, really painful and I need 5-10 times more time for simple understanding the basic function of the code. Karsten -- 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