linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] i2c: Set pinctrl recovery info to device pinctrl

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 21 Dec 2022 18:59:04 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Hawa, Hanna" <hhhawa@...zon.com>
Cc:     wsa@...nel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, dwmw@...zon.co.uk, benh@...zon.com,
        ronenk@...zon.com, talel@...zon.com, jonnyc@...zon.com,
        hanochu@...zon.com, farbere@...zon.com, itamark@...zon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] i2c: Set pinctrl recovery info to device pinctrl

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 09:32:11PM +0200, Hawa, Hanna wrote:
> On 12/20/2022 9:18 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > How you suggest to simplify this?
> > Using Elvis operator, which is ?:.
> 
> Are you refer to use 'return dev->pins && dev->pins->p ?: NULL;' ?
> Can't use Elvis operator in this way, because it will return the result of
> 'dev->pins && dev->pins->p' and not the value of 'dev->pins->p'

I see now. Then we need to check pins separately, something like

	if (!dev->pins)
		return NULL;

	return dev->pins->p;

Sorry that I haven't noticed that before.

> > > I can use 'return dev->pins ? dev->pins->p ?: dev->pins->p : NULL;'
> > Have you even try to compile this?
> Yup, the code compiled, but i think the first suggestion is more readable.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko