linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into one

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ac6d83d6-c8b0-e0bd-10aa-a49897679edb@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jun 2022 07:26:20 +0200
From:   Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com>
To:     Chang Yu <marcus.yu.56@...il.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     "Larry.Finger@...inger.net" <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        "linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: combine nested if statements into one

On 6/24/22 05:30, Chang Yu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:05:40PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
>> ...
>>> Seems to work. But the rules which operation is done first && or == are
>>> not too easy.
>>
>> They are the way around you want them to be.
>> == generates a truth value.
>> && and || compare truth values,
>>
>> The only 'wrong' operator priorities are & and |.
>> The short-circuiting && and || weren't in the very early
>> versions of C - the bitwise & and | were used.
>> When K&R added && and || they left the priorities of & an | alone.
>> I they they've later said they should have bitten the bullet
>> and changed the priorities and all the existing C code
>>
>>> I would prefer to have:
>>>
>>> if (padapter && (pfree_recv_queue == free_recv_queue))
>>>
>>> So it is very easy to read what is evaluated first.
>>
>> That just starts adding too many () and makes more complex
>> conditionals hard to read.
>>
>> 	David
>>
>>>
>>> But this is just my opinion and does not have to be right.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patch.
>>>
>>> Bye Philipp
>>
>> -
>> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
>> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
> 
> In my humble opinion it just boils down to personal preference in this
> case. The kernel coding style guidlines don't seem to have a definitive
> gold standard regarding this. I will leave the patch as-is for now, but
> if anybody feels strongly that the () needs to be removed please feel
> free to let me know and I'll make the change.

Please consider that the person you want to sign-of for this patch is 
most likely Greg K-H. I propose to fix first what he is asking for.

Bye Philipp