linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 19/19] locking/lockdep: Change if to else-if when checking bfs errors

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: <1553012967.152266.48.camel@acm.org>
Date:   Tue, 19 Mar 2019 09:29:27 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        will.deacon@....com, mingo@...nel.org
Cc:     ming.lei@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/19] locking/lockdep: Change if to else-if when
 checking bfs errors

On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 16:57 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> -       if (ret < 0) {
> +       if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
>                 print_bfs_bug(ret);
>                 return 0;
>         }
> -       if (ret == 1)
> +       else if (ret == 1)
>                 return ret;

Have you verified this patch series with checkpatch? Checkpatch should have
reported that you are changing code that conforms to the coding style into
code that does not conform to the kernel coding style. Checkpatch should have
reported the following:

"else is not generally useful after a break or return"

Thanks,

Bart.