linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel: futex: fixed to else and initcall

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]

Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:18:03 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Ozgur Karatas <okaratas@...ber.fsf.org>
cc:     dave@...olabs.net, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        mgorman@...e.de, dingel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kernel: futex: fixed to else and initcall

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Ozgur Karatas wrote:

> else doesn't need to be used, if should be enclosed in parentheses.

Really?

> -	if (err < 0)
> +	if (err < 0) {
>  		return err;
> -	else
>  		err = 0;
> +	}

So you change the code from

	if (err < 0)
		return err;
    	else
		err = 0;

to

	if (err < 0) {
		return err;
		err = 0;
	}

How on earth is that equivivalent and how would that 'err = 0;' statement
be ever executed?

You clearly ran checkpatch.pl on this file and the output for this
construct is:

WARNING: else is not generally useful after a break or return
#550: FILE: kernel/futex.c:550:
+		return err;
+	else

So the proper change would have been:

	if (err < 0)
		return err;

	err = 0;

and not the trainwreck you created.

checkpatch.pl does not substitute basic knowlegde of C.

Thanks,

	tglx