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]
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 08:39:50 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <>
To:     Andrew Morton <>
Cc:     NeilBrown <>, LKML <>,
        DRI Development <>,
        Intel Graphics Development <>,
        Gustavo Padovan <>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <>,
        Sean Paul <>,
        David Airlie <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Wei Wang <>, Stefan Agner <>,
        Andrei Vagin <>,
        Randy Dunlap <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Yisheng Xie <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Daniel Vetter <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel.h: Add for_each_if()

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Andrew Morton
<> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:51:08 +0200 Daniel Vetter <> wrote:
>> But I still have the situation that a bunch of maintainers acked this
>> and Andrew Morton defacto nacked it, which I guess means I'll keep the
>> macro in drm? The common way to go about this seems to be to just push
>> the patch series with the ack in some pull request to Linus and ignore
>> the people who raised questions, but not really my thing.
> Heh.
> But, am I wrong?  Code which uses regular kernel style doesn't have
> these issues.  We shouldn't be enabling irregular style - we should be
> making such sites more regular.  The fact that the compiler generates a
> nice warning in some cases simply helps us with that.

Yes liberal sprinkling of {} per coding style fixes it too. But given
that the if (!cond) ; else pattern is fairly common even outside of
drm it seems like not just graphics people think that little bit of
added robustness in iterator macros is worth it. Only reason I
bothered with this is because I've seen another open-coded version of
this pattern fly by.

Anyway I'm going on vacations for a few weeks now. Andy/Yisheng, I
guess if you want this it's up to you to haggle for a consensus around
this. If that doesn't happen I'm happy to keep it in drm headers.
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 -

Powered by blists - more mailing lists