linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/21] powerpc: Remove warning on array size when empty

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: <CA+7wUsys=J8vkEOtzd26B6MGEhfTBRzaA_myuUWNzf24rMvn+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:44:01 +0100
From:   Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>
To:     Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
        "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC PA SEMI PWRFICIENT" 
        <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/21] powerpc: Remove warning on array size when empty

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Christophe LEROY
<christophe.leroy@....fr> wrote:
>
>
> Le 27/02/2018 à 08:25, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>>> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>   static void __init check_cpu_feature_properties(unsigned long node)
>>>>>   {
>>>>> -       unsigned long i;
>>>>>          struct feature_property *fp = feature_properties;
>>>>>          const __be32 *prop;
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Much simpler is just add
>>>>
>>>> if (ARRAY_SIZE() == 0)
>>>>   return;
>>>>
>>>>> -       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties); ++i, ++fp) {
>>>>> +       for (; fp != feature_properties +
>>>>> ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties); ++fp) {
>>>
>>>
>>> ...or convert to while(), which will be more readable.
>>
>>
>> So you'd prefer something like:
>>
>> while (fp < feature_properties + ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties)) {
>>    ...
>>    ++fp;
>> }
>>
>> right ?
>>
>
>
> Why not do as suggested by Segher, ie just replace < by != in the original
> form ?

I can do that.

> Or add in front:
> if (!ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties))
>         return;

(not tested) I believe the compiler still go over the for() loop and
will complain about the original unsigned comparison.

> Christophe