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]

Date:   Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:19:31 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        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 Tue, 2019-03-19 at 09:29 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 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"

checkpatch just ain't that smart.
You're welcome to try to improve it.