linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Simplify conditional in assert

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:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:41:20 +0000
From:   Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>
To:     "dsterba@...e.cz" <dsterba@...e.cz>,
        Wan Jiabing <wanjiabing@...o.com>
CC:     Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        "linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kael_w@...h.net" <kael_w@...h.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Simplify conditional in assert

On 15/10/2021 12:52, David Sterba wrote:
> Adding Johannes to CC,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 06:36:39AM -0400, Wan Jiabing wrote:
>> Fix following coccicheck warning:
>> ./fs/btrfs/inode.c:2015:16-18: WARNING !A || A && B is equivalent to !A || B
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wan Jiabing <wanjiabing@...o.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/btrfs/inode.c | 3 +--
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> index e9154b436c47..da4aeef73b0d 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
>> @@ -2011,8 +2011,7 @@ int btrfs_run_delalloc_range(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct page *locked_page
>>  		 * to use run_delalloc_nocow() here, like for  regular
>>  		 * preallocated inodes.
>>  		 */
>> -		ASSERT(!zoned ||
>> -		       (zoned && btrfs_is_data_reloc_root(inode->root)));
>> +		ASSERT(!zoned || btrfs_is_data_reloc_root(inode->root));
> 
> The short form is equivalent, but I'm not sure it's also on the same
> level of readability. Repeating the 'zoned' condition check makes it
> obvious on first sight, which is what I'd prefer.
> 
> Johannes if you'd like the new version I'll change it but otherwise I'm
> fine with what we have now.

I'm fine either way, no strong preferences from my side.