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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 15:14:51 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> To: walter harms <wharms@....de> cc: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c: use WARN On Sat, 3 Nov 2012, walter harms wrote: > > > Am 03.11.2012 11:58, schrieb Julia Lawall: >> From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr> >> >> Use WARN rather than printk followed by WARN_ON(1), for conciseness. >> >> A simplified version of the semantic patch that makes this transformation >> is as follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) >> >> // <smpl> >> @@ >> expression list es; >> @@ >> >> -printk( >> +WARN(1, >> es); >> -WARN_ON(1); >> // </smpl> >> >> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr> >> >> --- >> drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c | 6 ++---- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c >> index 479e43e..84c6b6c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ibm/emac/mal.c >> @@ -738,13 +738,11 @@ static int __devexit mal_remove(struct platform_device *ofdev) >> /* Synchronize with scheduled polling */ >> napi_disable(&mal->napi); >> >> - if (!list_empty(&mal->list)) { >> + if (!list_empty(&mal->list)) >> /* This is *very* bad */ >> - printk(KERN_EMERG >> + WARN(1, KERN_EMERG >> "mal%d: commac list is not empty on remove!\n", >> mal->index); >> - WARN_ON(1); >> - } >> >> dev_set_drvdata(&ofdev->dev, NULL); >> >> > > Hi Julia, > you are removing the {} behin the if. I prefer to be a bit conservative > about {}. There is suggest to keep them because WARN may be expanded in > future (with a second line) and that will cause subtle changes that do > no break the code. (Yes i know it is possible to write macros that > contain savely more than one line.) WARN is already multi-line, surrounded by ({ }). It seems to be set up to be used as an expression. Is it necessary to assume that it might someday be changed from safe to unsafe? julia -- 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