linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] n_hdlc fix read and write locking

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]

Date:	Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:40:47 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Paul Fulghum <paulkf@...rogate.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] n_hdlc fix read and write locking

On Tuesday 26 October 2010, Paul Fulghum wrote:
> On 10/25/2010 3:31 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > Would it be possible to express the same using
> > wait_event_interruptible()?
> 
> Yes if I embed an assignment in the event expression:
> 
> rc = wait_event_interruptible(&wait, (buf = get_buf()));
> if (!rc)
>         process_buf(buf);
> 
> Is that considered acceptable?

I'd do it if it makes the code more readable. We need the patch
for the stable release, so it really should be obvious not to
introduce new bugs. I could not fully understand the version
you posted, so if you can make it easier to understand by using
wait_event, please do so. If you think that putting the
assignment into the macro argument outweighs the advantage from
the wait_event, just keep your version.

	Arnd
--
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/