linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] cris-cryptocop: Apply another recommendation from "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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1608272105110.3363@hadrien>
Date:   Sat, 27 Aug 2016 21:06:25 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc:     linux-cris-kernel@...s.com,
        Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Mikael Starvik <starvik@...s.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] cris-cryptocop: Apply another recommendation from
 "checkpatch.pl"



On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:23:06 +0200
>
> The script "checkpatch.pl" can point out that assignments should usually
> not be performed within condition checks.
> Thus move the assignments for a local variable to separate statements
> in three functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> ---
>  arch/cris/arch-v32/drivers/cryptocop.c | 11 ++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/cris/arch-v32/drivers/cryptocop.c b/arch/cris/arch-v32/drivers/cryptocop.c
> index 1a966dc..00231a7 100644
> --- a/arch/cris/arch-v32/drivers/cryptocop.c
> +++ b/arch/cris/arch-v32/drivers/cryptocop.c
> @@ -1510,7 +1510,8 @@ int cryptocop_new_session(cryptocop_session_id *sid, struct cryptocop_transform_
>  	while (tfrm_in){
>  		int err;
>  		++no_tfrms;
> -		if ((err = transform_ok(tfrm_in))) {
> +		err = transform_ok(tfrm_in);
> +		if (err) {
>  			DEBUG_API(printk("cryptocop_new_session, bad transform\n"));
>  			return err;
>  		}
> @@ -2276,7 +2277,10 @@ static int cryptocop_job_setup(struct cryptocop_prio_job **pj, struct cryptocop_
>  		(*pj)->iop->ctx_in.saved_data = operation->list_op.inlist;
>  		(*pj)->iop->ctx_in.saved_data_buf = operation->list_op.in_data_buf;
>  	} else {
> -		if ((err = cryptocop_setup_dma_list(operation, &(*pj)->iop, alloc_flag))) {
> +		err = cryptocop_setup_dma_list(operation,
> +					       &(*pj)->iop,
> +					       alloc_flag);

Checkpatch didn't say to put every argument on a different line, and that
wasn't done before, so why do it now?  There is plenty of room for at
least &(*pj)->iop on the line before.

julia

> +		if (err) {
>  			DEBUG_API(printk("cryptocop_job_setup: cryptocop_setup_dma_list failed %d\n", err));
>  			kfree(*pj);
>  			return err;
> @@ -2867,7 +2871,8 @@ static int cryptocop_ioctl_process(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp, unsig
>
>  	DEBUG(printk("cryptocop_ioctl_process: inserting job, cb_data=0x%p\n", cop->cb_data));
>
> -	if ((err = cryptocop_job_queue_insert_user_job(cop)) != 0) {
> +	err = cryptocop_job_queue_insert_user_job(cop);
> +	if (err) {
>  		DEBUG_API(printk("cryptocop_ioctl_process: insert job %d\n", err));
>  		err = -EINVAL;
>  		goto mark_outpages_dirty;
> --
> 2.9.3
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>