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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170615165651.GA695@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:56:51 +0200
From:   Dawid Kurek <dawikur@...il.com>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.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 15/06/17, Jani Nikula wrote:
> 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.
> 
Yeah, makes sense. If you need to check then it exceeds simple initialization,
and then it is not declare&initialize. Yes, now I see it.

Thanks a lot,
Dawid

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus