linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm: Reduce scope of 'state' variable

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: <87vanxxp5h.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:10:34 +0300
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dawid Kurek <dawikur@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Reduce scope of 'state' variable

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Dawid Kurek <dawikur@...il.com> wrote:
> On 15/06/17, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Separate declaration and initialization would lead to a cleaner patch
>> and result.
>
> I saw combining declaration and initialization is quite common, i.e. in
> drm_atomic file. Personally, I also prefer those in one statement. But yes, it
> looks cleaner here, in two lines.

I'd say the rule of thumb is that combined declaration and
initialization is fine if the initialization is trivial, in particular
can never fail. If you need to check the return value, like in this
case, I'd prefer separate initialization.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center