linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/3] typecheck: extend typecheck.h with more useful typechecking macros

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]

Date:	Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:12:00 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] typecheck: extend typecheck.h with more useful
 typechecking macros

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> wrote:
> +#define typecheck2(type,x,y)           \
> +({     typecheck(type, x);             \
> +       typecheck(type, y);             \
> +       1;                              \
> +})

This seems silly.

Since typecheck() is already a nice expression returning 1, there's no
reason to do *another* level of statement expressions. So it would be
just

  #define typecheck2(type,x,y) \
    (typecheck(type, x), typecheck(type, y))

instead.

Which makes me suspect you don't really need that whole typecheck2 etc
macro set at all.

                 Linus
--
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/