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:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 10:02:07 +0800
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, will.deacon@....com, mingo@...nel.org,
        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

Thanks for the review.

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 00:29, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> 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"

I didn't. And, these changes were done in a row; my not checking each
of them was careless.

Thanks,
Yuyang