[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45b976af3cf74555af7214993e7d614b@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 15:16:41 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Waiman Long' <longman@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Fix kernel crash when spinning on
RWSEM_OWNER_UNKNOWN
From: linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org <linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Waiman Long
> Sent: 15 January 2020 14:27
...
> >> if ((wstate == WRITER_HANDOFF) &&
> >> - (rwsem_spin_on_owner(sem, 0) == OWNER_NULL))
> >> + rwsem_spin_on_owner(sem, RWSEM_NONSPINNABLE) == OWNER_NULL)
> > Nit: the inner braces in the first half of the conditional aren't required
> > either.
>
> I typically over-parenthesize the code to make it easier to read as we
> don't need to think too much about operator precedence to see if it is
> doing the right thing.
The problem is it actually makes it harder to read.
It is difficult for the 'mark 1 eyeball' to follow lots of sets of brackets.
Since == (etc) are the lowest priority operators (apart from ?:) they
never need ().
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists