linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel.h: Add for_each

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: <bb9df9a3-9bce-2ccc-b984-156f11e1c7cf@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:41:15 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>, Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
        Yisheng Xie <ysxie@...mail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel.h: Add for_each_if()

On 07/16/2018 01:11 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 16:42 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 07/13/2018 04:37 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> 
>>
>> coding-style.rst says:
>> Also, use braces when a loop contains more than a single simple
>> statement:
> 
> Independently on a) would we use some macro for condition, or b) fix
> macros against this kind of nested conditions, there is another
> weirdness we would like to avoid, i.e.
> 
> for_each_foo() {
>  ...
> } else {
>  ...
> }
> 
> It is written according to coding style, but too much weird.

Yeah, that's odd.  Looks like else matches the for loop. (!)

> So, summarize this discussion I think we would
> - keep for_each_if() in DRM subsystem alone
> - fix macros which are using positive condition 'if (cond)' by replacing
> with 'if (!cond) {} else' form for sake of robustness.
> 
> Do you agree on that?

Sure, both of those sound good to me.

thanks,
-- 
~Randy