linux-kernel - Re: Possible code defects: macros and precedence

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: <1474191110.1954.16.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Sep 2016 02:31:50 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible code defects: macros and precedence

On Sun, 2016-09-18 at 07:09 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Joe Perches wrote:
> > I also submitted a similar checkpatch addition that looks
> > for non-comma operators used macro arguments in function
> > definitions.
> >
> > The checkpatch test has the same weakness as the coccinelle
> > test. It doesn't check uses, just the macro definition.
> I wonder if it is really a weakness?  Does anyone care if a macro
> definition has more parentheses than what is necessary for the current
> usage

An excess of parentheses can hurt readability a little.