linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] at24: support eeproms that do not auto-rollover reads.

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: <20171207215750.jzx6mqftx4poeep7@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:57:50 +0100
From:   Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@...x.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, nsekhar@...com,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>,
        Divagar Mohandass <divagar.mohandass@...el.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] at24: support eeproms that do not auto-rollover
 reads.

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 10:33:51PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 2017-12-07 20:02 GMT+01:00 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:26:50PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >> > +       if (at24->chip.flags & AT24_FLAG_NO_RDROL) {
> >> > +               bits = (at24->chip.flags & AT24_FLAG_ADDR16) ? 16 : 8;
> >>
> >> There's no need for braces around the ternary operator's condition.
> >
> > Even if not required, I'd keep them for clearity.
> >
> 
> I don't want to start bikeshedding, so I'll take it as it is, but I
> prefer to avoid braces wherever it's not necessary.

For me the reasoning is: Most people (me included) don't know off-hand
if the semantic of

	a & b ? c : d

is
	(a & b) ? c : d

or

	a & (b ? c : d)

In some situations (e.g. a & b == c) gcc even warns when you don't add
syntactically needless parentheses. The case under discussion isn't such
an example though.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |