linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] staging:android_pmem.h: Fixes the space and other formating issues pointed out by checkpatch.pl

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: <20120120162801.GE2744@shadowen.org>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:28:01 +0000
From:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Pradheep Shrinivasan <pradheep.sh@...il.com>, greg@...ah.com,
	devel@...uxdriverproject.org, swetland@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] staging:android_pmem.h: Fixes the space and other
 formating issues pointed out by checkpatch.pl

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 05:29:04AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 14:54 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > It still complains about the following macros where parenthesis are
> > not needed.
> > 
> > ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parenthesis
> > #156: FILE: staging/android/pmem.c:156:
> > +#define PMEM_IS_FREE(id, index) !(pmem[id].bitmap[index].allocated)
> > 
> > Let's just make the check look for an operator with a low
> > precedence.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Programming_languages
> > 
> > Otherwise the submitters are going to change it to:
> > 
> > #define PMEM_IS_FREE(id, index) (!(pmem[id].bitmap[index].allocated))
> > 
> > That has two pairs of unneeded paranthesis and we run the risk of
> > reprogramming the kernel in lisp, by mistake.
> 
> I think the outer parens are necessary.
> Imagine PMEM_IS_FREE(foo, bar).another_dereference


I don't believe that makes any sense does it, those are pointer
operations, and passing 0/1 to those is going to make the . very
unhappy.  But that is why I am only proposing to do the three which are
non-sensicle on pointers.

-apw
--
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/