linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata: fixup return type of wait_for_completion

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: <20150210155517.GB1883@opentech.at>
Date:	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:55:17 +0100
From:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: fixup return type of
	wait_for_completion_timeout

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Tejun Heo wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:39:36AM -0500, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > -	if (!rc) {
> > +	if (irq_timeout == 0) {
> 
> Why == 0 tho?  This always bothers me.  To match this style, we'd use
> != 0 to test the other direction.  In what way is "if (ret != 0)"
> better than "if (ret)"?  We're negating the two tests needlessly.
>
The == 0 seemed better to me than ! here because it would read

  if (not irq_timeout) {

while it actually did time out - but this could be resolved by renaming
irq_timeout to time_left (as was suggested by Sergei Shtylyov
<sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> for a similar patch) and then it 
would read:

   if (time_left == 0) {

which would nicely describe the timeout state.

if that addresses your concerns then I'll fix it up and repost.

thx!
hofrat
--
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/