linux-kernel - Re: xfs_icache.c:1298]: (style) Redundant condition

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]

Message-ID: <20160801063208.GB15590@infradead.org>
Date:	Sun, 31 Jul 2016 23:32:08 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	David Binderman <linuxdev.baldrick@...il.com>
Cc:	david@...morbit.com, xfs@....sgi.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	dcb314@...mail.com
Subject: Re: xfs_icache.c:1298]: (style) Redundant condition

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 04:13:28PM +0100, David Binderman wrote:
> Hello there,
> 
> linux-4.7/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1298]: (style) Redundant condition:
> eofb. '!eofb || (eofb && eofb.eof_scan_owner!=0)' is equivalent to
> '!eofb || eofb.eof_scan_owner!=0'
> 
> Source code is
> 
>    ASSERT(!eofb || (eofb && eofb->eof_scan_owner != 0));
> 
> Maybe better code
> 
>    ASSERT(!eofb || (eofb->eof_scan_owner != 0));

Yes, that would be better.  But it's probably not worth changing
existing code just for that.