linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: asic3: One function call less in asic3_irq

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:   Sun, 7 Jul 2019 01:52:53 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: asic3: One function call less in asic3_irq_probe()

On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 08:30:08PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 20:22:26 +0200
> 
> Avoid an extra function call by using a ternary operator instead of
> a conditional statement.

Which is a good thing, because...?

> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.

Oh, I see - that answers all questions.  "Software has detected an issue",
so of course an issue it is.

> -		if (irq < asic->irq_base + ASIC3_NUM_GPIOS)
> -			irq_set_chip(irq, &asic3_gpio_irq_chip);
> -		else
> -			irq_set_chip(irq, &asic3_irq_chip);
> -
> +		irq_set_chip(irq,
> +			     (irq < asic->irq_base + ASIC3_NUM_GPIOS)
> +			     ? &asic3_gpio_irq_chip
> +			     : &asic3_irq_chip);

... except that the result is not objectively better by any real
criteria.  It's not more readable, it conveys _less_ information
to reader (the fact that calls differ only by the last argument
had been visually obvious already, and logics used to be easier
to see), it (obviously) does not generate better (or different)
code.  What the hell is the point?

May I politely inquire what makes you so determined to avoid any
not-entirely-mechanical activity?