linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] acpi: apei: clear error status before acknowledging the error

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: <CAHp75VcJitj5cSGMOYqunJ0u1Hc04n7xG6HDa2-RU8EuadohXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:12:13 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        james.morse@....com, shiju.jose@...wei.com,
        Geliang Tang <geliangtang@...il.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] acpi: apei: clear error status before acknowledging
 the error

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:44:21PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> For my opinion, since you asked, the either case needs a comment on
>> top of that additional check.
>
> That's because the comment belongs to the v2 part of the check.
>
>> Separate conditionals in independent cases are, of course, better.
>
> Yes, and separate are easier to read if you read them like this:
>
> +       if (rc == -ENOENT)
> +               return rc;
>
> <--- Ok, we got the missing entry out of the way, now, here, we have a
> valid entry. Now we can concentrate on processing it further.
>
>         ... other check and ack and ...
>
> And this becomes a lot more natural when you're staring at a big function
> which does a lot of things and you concentrate only on the main path.
>
> Oh, and this is how those checks get translated to asm as there you
> don't really have compound if-statements. So if you switch your mind to
> reading such checks separately, you're practically ready to read their
> asm translation too...
>
> Anyway, this is how I see it.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
> --



-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko