linux-kernel - Re: [RFT PATCH v3 10/10] iio: Don't silently expect attribute types

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]

Message-ID: <YzqubeAnrH5FJ0vA@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2022 12:42:05 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
        Cosmin Tanislav <cosmin.tanislav@...log.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@...rochip.com>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Miaoqian Lin <linmq006@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Mihail Chindris <mihail.chindris@...log.com>,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH v3 10/10] iio: Don't silently expect attribute types

On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 11:58:35AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> On 10/3/22 11:43, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 11:13:53AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

...

> > > +		for (i = 0, id_attr = buffer->attrs[i];
> > > +		     (id_attr = buffer->attrs[i]); i++)
> > 
> > Not sure why we have additional parentheses...
> 
> Because gcc warns about the assignment and suggests adding parenthesis if we
> don't.

Ah, this is a condition, so that's why compiler wants to have a _result_ of
the assignment and not the ambiguous thingy.

Btw, have you considered to switch to in-loop iterator definitions as we do
in many other places? Also, it might make sense to introduce for_each_...
type of macro helper if the loop is used more than once.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko